Lecture 1
Philosophy of the 20th century: major currents
1. What is philosophy of science and philosophy of humanities
- tasks of philosophy of science and of humanities
2. 2 related key issues in philosophy of science and of humanities
- demarcation problem how to distinguish bona fide scientific knowledge from
pseudoscience
- relation theory and reality
A tripartite division
1. Philosophy of natural sciences truth
2. Philosophy of social sciences
3. Philosophy of the humanities interpretation
here, the demarcation problem still looms: what makes for a good/valid interpretation as opposed
to mere belief
Descriptive and normative philosophy
1. Both philosophy of science and of humanities have a double task; a descriptive and normative
one. Explain these tasks
- descriptive = merely giving a description/explication of scientific practices/products
- normative = does something more: it also starts w/ descriptive analysis but also evaluates
that scientific practice scientist X investigated Y, but did he use the right method etc.
- science/episteme = timeless necessary truths; knowledge
- pseudoscience/doxa = opinion, perspective-dependent beliefs; belief
Demarcation problem
2. What is the problem of demarcation?
the demarcation problem is focused on the question “what distinguishes good sciences from
pseudoscience and opinion?” question in the 20th century
- Aristotle and Plato already asked this question
what are the sources of knowledge?
- Plato’s rationalism = knowledge comes from the use of the human mind/ratio
- Aristotle’s empiricism = knowledge comes from experience
Plato’s myth of the cave
- observations (of the shadows of the objects that the prisoners see) can’t be a reliable source of
information, because the world that can be observed/observations constantly change
- humans that take sensory experience as the ultimate source of knowledge are like prisoners in the
cave; they mistake appearance for reality (doxa)
you can’t rely on your senses, but you can rely on reasoning capacities
- Aristotle disagrees: there’s only 1 world and we can learn about it through empirical inquiry
3 different answers to the demarcation problem
1. Logical empiricism Aristotle
- verifiability = claim should be testable using sensory experience
2. Critical rationalism Plato
- falsifiability = claim should have the potential to be refuted by some possible observation
- Popper
1
,3. Kuhn’s philosophy of science Kuhn
- normal science is governed by a paradigm
1. Logical empiricism
Logical Empiricism and verification
3. Logical Empiricism endorsed a verification criterion of meaning. Explain what this criterion means
a proposition should be formulated such, that you can use observation, aided or not by the use of
instruments and experiments, to test the truth or falsity of the proposition
- IMPORTANT: verifiability isn’t a claim that only true statements are scientific statements
Logical Empiricism
- main aim: analysis of the nature, success, and growth of scientific knowledge
- Vienna circle as epicenter
- verifiability = testability
- conclusion: something is true or false
- strong empiricist principle: experience is the only source of meaning (like Aristotle)
- scientific claims are verifiable and hence have meaning; other claims (philosophical bijv.) are
therefore meaningless
Logical empiricism and behaviorism
- like logical empiricism, for behaviorism (philosophical stream) the mind is a black box and
unobservable. If you want to study it in a scientific manner, you should only look at environmental
features/behaviors of ppl/animals that can be observed
not verifiable: - “I hear a melody in my head” cannot be checked for truth
- “He gets angry” cannot be checked for truth either
2. Critical rationalism/Popper’s alternative
Critical rationalism and Popper’s problem of induction
4. Acc. to Popper, the verification criterion is useless for distinguishing universal laws from
metaphysical statements. Explain Popper’s argument for this claim
Popper: if you want to demarcate science from pseudoscience, and physics is a kind of an
exemplar model of good science, and it uses universal laws, the problem is that a universal law can
never be conclusively verified = problem of induction
acc. to Popper, it’s in principle always possible that the law will be refuted by future
observations (“all swans are white” was refuted by the discovery of black swans)
Popper: logical empiricism’s verification and conclusion are no solution to the demarcation
problem
Critical rationalism and Popper’s falsifiability
5. Popper endorsed falsifiability as a solution to the problem of demarcation. Explain what this
criterion entails
falsifiability = a scientific proposition should be formulated such that it has potential to be refuted
by observation
the claim/proposition should forbid certain states of affairs
“all swans are white” forbid the state of affair of a black swan
Induction vs deduction
6. How does the inductive method of verification differ from the deductive method of falsification?
2
, - inductive/induction = observation pattern hypothesis theory
- deductive/deduction = theory hypothesis observation confirmation
Summary of Popper’s alternative to demarcation problem: critical rationalism
- main aim: analysis of the nature, success, and growth of scientific knowledge (same as LE’s)
- justification of induction is impossible
- falsifiability + deductive testing/deduction
- observation is always theory-laden
Observation sentence vs basic sentence
7. What is the key difference between an observation sentence (LE) and a basic sentence (Popper)?
- observation sentence = singular statement (= statement about particular object) for testing
a theory, which goes out from the idea that observations are completely neutral (LE)
- basic sentence = singular statement that goes out from the idea that every observation is
theory-laden in the sense that it’s infected with theoretical assumptions (Popper)
example for Popper’s idea of theory-ladenness
- Eskimo/Indian drawing: if you don’t know what an Indian or Eskimo is, you won’t see any of
them in the drawing, but because you know what they are, you are able to see them
In summary: 2 problems Popper has with verifiability
1. Problem of induction (question 4)
universal laws resist verification and confirmation
2. The neutral experience assumption is false
observation is theory-laden
3. Paradigms and revolutions/Kuhn’s alternative
Kuhn’s alternative: paradigms and revolutions
- main aim: analysis of the nature, success, and growth of scientific knowledge (same as LE & Popper)
- approach: much more descriptive than normative main focus is on the practice of science,
rather than the end results
main focus lays on observing techniques used and how the research itself is carried out
- paradigms: theory choice of scientists is made not on the basis of fixed methodological rules, but
the standards for justification change when paradigms change
- revolutions: acc. to Kuhn, steady growth of knowledge is oversimplistic; there are often wrong
turns and radical ruptures
- normal science and revolutionary science
Normal science vs falsification difference
9. Kuhn’s notion of normal science contradicts Popper’s views on falsification. Explain why this is
- normal science = the periods during which scientists work within a given paradigm without
questioning its foundations. It’s characterized by being dominated by a paradigm and by not
trying to refute theories, but rather elaborate and refine them
- falsification: if a theory is falsified, scientist throws it overboard and starts constructing a new
one
- normal science: acc. to Kuhn, when there’s an observation made that doesn’t fit the research
program, the theory doesn’t immediately get thrown away
rather: this presents a puzzle, which is there to be solved, and only when the puzzles pile
up and can’t be solved by the paradigm anymore, only then a successor paradigm may enter
the picture and overthrow the previous one
3
Philosophy of the 20th century: major currents
1. What is philosophy of science and philosophy of humanities
- tasks of philosophy of science and of humanities
2. 2 related key issues in philosophy of science and of humanities
- demarcation problem how to distinguish bona fide scientific knowledge from
pseudoscience
- relation theory and reality
A tripartite division
1. Philosophy of natural sciences truth
2. Philosophy of social sciences
3. Philosophy of the humanities interpretation
here, the demarcation problem still looms: what makes for a good/valid interpretation as opposed
to mere belief
Descriptive and normative philosophy
1. Both philosophy of science and of humanities have a double task; a descriptive and normative
one. Explain these tasks
- descriptive = merely giving a description/explication of scientific practices/products
- normative = does something more: it also starts w/ descriptive analysis but also evaluates
that scientific practice scientist X investigated Y, but did he use the right method etc.
- science/episteme = timeless necessary truths; knowledge
- pseudoscience/doxa = opinion, perspective-dependent beliefs; belief
Demarcation problem
2. What is the problem of demarcation?
the demarcation problem is focused on the question “what distinguishes good sciences from
pseudoscience and opinion?” question in the 20th century
- Aristotle and Plato already asked this question
what are the sources of knowledge?
- Plato’s rationalism = knowledge comes from the use of the human mind/ratio
- Aristotle’s empiricism = knowledge comes from experience
Plato’s myth of the cave
- observations (of the shadows of the objects that the prisoners see) can’t be a reliable source of
information, because the world that can be observed/observations constantly change
- humans that take sensory experience as the ultimate source of knowledge are like prisoners in the
cave; they mistake appearance for reality (doxa)
you can’t rely on your senses, but you can rely on reasoning capacities
- Aristotle disagrees: there’s only 1 world and we can learn about it through empirical inquiry
3 different answers to the demarcation problem
1. Logical empiricism Aristotle
- verifiability = claim should be testable using sensory experience
2. Critical rationalism Plato
- falsifiability = claim should have the potential to be refuted by some possible observation
- Popper
1
,3. Kuhn’s philosophy of science Kuhn
- normal science is governed by a paradigm
1. Logical empiricism
Logical Empiricism and verification
3. Logical Empiricism endorsed a verification criterion of meaning. Explain what this criterion means
a proposition should be formulated such, that you can use observation, aided or not by the use of
instruments and experiments, to test the truth or falsity of the proposition
- IMPORTANT: verifiability isn’t a claim that only true statements are scientific statements
Logical Empiricism
- main aim: analysis of the nature, success, and growth of scientific knowledge
- Vienna circle as epicenter
- verifiability = testability
- conclusion: something is true or false
- strong empiricist principle: experience is the only source of meaning (like Aristotle)
- scientific claims are verifiable and hence have meaning; other claims (philosophical bijv.) are
therefore meaningless
Logical empiricism and behaviorism
- like logical empiricism, for behaviorism (philosophical stream) the mind is a black box and
unobservable. If you want to study it in a scientific manner, you should only look at environmental
features/behaviors of ppl/animals that can be observed
not verifiable: - “I hear a melody in my head” cannot be checked for truth
- “He gets angry” cannot be checked for truth either
2. Critical rationalism/Popper’s alternative
Critical rationalism and Popper’s problem of induction
4. Acc. to Popper, the verification criterion is useless for distinguishing universal laws from
metaphysical statements. Explain Popper’s argument for this claim
Popper: if you want to demarcate science from pseudoscience, and physics is a kind of an
exemplar model of good science, and it uses universal laws, the problem is that a universal law can
never be conclusively verified = problem of induction
acc. to Popper, it’s in principle always possible that the law will be refuted by future
observations (“all swans are white” was refuted by the discovery of black swans)
Popper: logical empiricism’s verification and conclusion are no solution to the demarcation
problem
Critical rationalism and Popper’s falsifiability
5. Popper endorsed falsifiability as a solution to the problem of demarcation. Explain what this
criterion entails
falsifiability = a scientific proposition should be formulated such that it has potential to be refuted
by observation
the claim/proposition should forbid certain states of affairs
“all swans are white” forbid the state of affair of a black swan
Induction vs deduction
6. How does the inductive method of verification differ from the deductive method of falsification?
2
, - inductive/induction = observation pattern hypothesis theory
- deductive/deduction = theory hypothesis observation confirmation
Summary of Popper’s alternative to demarcation problem: critical rationalism
- main aim: analysis of the nature, success, and growth of scientific knowledge (same as LE’s)
- justification of induction is impossible
- falsifiability + deductive testing/deduction
- observation is always theory-laden
Observation sentence vs basic sentence
7. What is the key difference between an observation sentence (LE) and a basic sentence (Popper)?
- observation sentence = singular statement (= statement about particular object) for testing
a theory, which goes out from the idea that observations are completely neutral (LE)
- basic sentence = singular statement that goes out from the idea that every observation is
theory-laden in the sense that it’s infected with theoretical assumptions (Popper)
example for Popper’s idea of theory-ladenness
- Eskimo/Indian drawing: if you don’t know what an Indian or Eskimo is, you won’t see any of
them in the drawing, but because you know what they are, you are able to see them
In summary: 2 problems Popper has with verifiability
1. Problem of induction (question 4)
universal laws resist verification and confirmation
2. The neutral experience assumption is false
observation is theory-laden
3. Paradigms and revolutions/Kuhn’s alternative
Kuhn’s alternative: paradigms and revolutions
- main aim: analysis of the nature, success, and growth of scientific knowledge (same as LE & Popper)
- approach: much more descriptive than normative main focus is on the practice of science,
rather than the end results
main focus lays on observing techniques used and how the research itself is carried out
- paradigms: theory choice of scientists is made not on the basis of fixed methodological rules, but
the standards for justification change when paradigms change
- revolutions: acc. to Kuhn, steady growth of knowledge is oversimplistic; there are often wrong
turns and radical ruptures
- normal science and revolutionary science
Normal science vs falsification difference
9. Kuhn’s notion of normal science contradicts Popper’s views on falsification. Explain why this is
- normal science = the periods during which scientists work within a given paradigm without
questioning its foundations. It’s characterized by being dominated by a paradigm and by not
trying to refute theories, but rather elaborate and refine them
- falsification: if a theory is falsified, scientist throws it overboard and starts constructing a new
one
- normal science: acc. to Kuhn, when there’s an observation made that doesn’t fit the research
program, the theory doesn’t immediately get thrown away
rather: this presents a puzzle, which is there to be solved, and only when the puzzles pile
up and can’t be solved by the paradigm anymore, only then a successor paradigm may enter
the picture and overthrow the previous one
3
