Lecture 1 What is Science?
PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
- Theoretical: aspects where people talk to each other, how do things work and are started
- Epistemology: how do we know what knowledge is
- Practical: what kind of implication do things have, if certain practises are good or bad
What do philosophers of science do?
- Generally: asking higher-level questions about science.
o Reflecting on implicit assumptions of scientific practice
o Uncovering norms and values in science
o Questioning the methods of science
o Exploring the limits of scientific knowledge and inquiry
o Do scientists think about what they are measuring and how they are doing it
Philosophical Methods
- Philosophers use different methods than scientists, as they partly address questions that
cannot be answered by same methods (e.g., how scientists act vs. how scientists should act).
o Do not gather data
o Can be interested in a question which can not be answered
- Philosophical methods: logical reasoning, thought experiments, conceptual analysis,
- One of the most central methods is the use of arguments and counter- arguments:
philosophers investigate topics by making and responding to arguments.
Premises
- To make an argument is to give a set of reasons (premises) in support of a conclusion
- The function of premises is to support the conclusion
- The conclusion should, in some way or another, follow from the premises without simply
restating them
- To make a counter-argument is to show that a conclusion does not follow from certain
premises or that the premises are false.
- Philosophers will try to argue about the premises
,SCIENCE VS. PSEUDO-SCIENCE
What is science?
- What is the common features of sciences, in contrast to disciplines that we do not consider to
be sciences?
o The distinguishing feature of science lies in the particular methods that scientists use
▪ experimentation, observation, theory construction.
o What are the exact characteristics of certain theories and methods that make them
scientific?
Distinction between science and pseudoscience
- A good starting point is to ask: what distinguishes science from pseudo- science?
o Purpose
o Normative standards
o Quantify the data
o Sensitivity to evidence
- Demarcation Problem: demarcating ‘proper’ science from look-alikes
o Theoretical value: understanding what distinguishes ‘good’ from ‘bad’ science
o Practical value: decision guidance in private, public, and academic life
Pseudoscience: Non-science posing as science
1) Not everything that classifies as non-science is pseudo-science
o e.g., theology, ethics: does not pretend to be science
2) Defenders of pseudoscience commonly promote a view that substantially deviates from the
established scientific theories
3) Demarcation is not always easy as science changes over time and science in itself is
heterogenous.
Examples pseudoscience vs science
- Vulcan: seems pseudo but had good reason to believe
o 1860: Le Verrier announced ‘discovery’ of planet Vulcan
o The problem: trajectory of Mercury couldn’t be explained by Newtonian Physics
o Le Verrier: there must be another planet to explain Mercury’s orbit
o Very difficult to observe anything in Mercury’s orbit
o Despite many attempts, no observation of Vulcan; still, many astronomers held on to
the theory
o 1916: Einstein’s Theory of Relativity explains orbit, Vulcan is abandoned
- Cryonics: not pseudo but speculative science
o Freezing & storage of corpses to be resurrected in the future
o The idea: human brain can survive w/o being constantly active
o The hope: future technology will allow for resurrection
o Status quo: only cells, tissue, and small organs have been successfully cryopreserved
& reversed
, - ‘Saviour of Mothers’
o Suspected connection between childbed fever and handling corpses
o Made handwashing mandatory: reduction in childbed fever
o Pre-germ theory: theory rejected by scientific community
o Did not have scientific feedback
- Theory of Evolution
o Darwin’s discovery of evolution by natural selection
o Replacing the idea that different species have been separately created by God
o Slow process of social and scientific acceptance
- Just because a theory is true doe not make it scientific: Methodology determines this
FALSIFICATIONISM
- Disclaimer: finding an ‘essential’ feature common to all and only those disciplines we
consider sciences seems unlikely
- However, there are clear example of science and clear examples of non- science/pseudo-
science and some central features that might guide their distinction
o Scientific endeavours aim to reveal natural regularities (‘laws’) in order to explain and
predict the occurrence of empirical phenomena
o A scientific theory must be open to be checked against experience: at least
hypothetically, it must be possible to prove a scientific theory to be false
popper
- Popper tries to identify a criterion that enables us to distinguish science from pseudo-science
o not interested in whether a theory is true or false, or if it is significant and meaningful
o interested in what guarantees the status of a theory as scientific
- Popper gives a answer to what makes a theory scientific: falsifiability, refutability, testability
- Popper’s Conclusions
1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, for nearly every theory, if we look for confirmations.
2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions
3. Every good scientific theory is a prohibition: forbids things to happen. The more the better
4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is nonscientific.
5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it.
- Testability is falsifiability
- there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to
refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.
6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it results of a genuine test of theory
o Motivates critical attitude understood as the readiness to change one’s assumptions
o In contrast to a dogmatic attitude related to pseudo-sciences, mainly aiming to
confirm and verify one’s assumptions – by all means necessary.
7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers
- for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory
ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it
rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its
scientific status.
o Conventionalist Twist
, Ad-hoc Explanation
- ad hoc explanation is formed only for a particular purpose, to address a specific problem such
as the problem of immunizing a theory from falsification by a certain anomaly.
- What makes a hypothesis ad hoc is not the content of hypothesis but motivation of why it is
proposed.
- Popper is suspicious of ad hoc explanations as they are considered to make a theory less and
less falsifiable. Thus he considers introduction of ad hoc explanations an unscientific practice.
Falsification examples
- The criterion of falsification plays a central role in many debates concerning the status of
disciplines as science or pseudo-science – with real life consequences.
- A famous example is the discussion between defenders of evolution theory and creationism –
related to the discussion of whether education in American schools should offer a ‘balanced
treatment’ of evolutionary biology and creationist science.
- Case Study: Creationism
o Creationism
▪ The universe is very young (6,000 to 20,000 years)
▪ Everything started instantaneously
▪ Human beings had ancestry separate from apes
▪ A monstrous flood once engulfed the entire earth
o “Do creation scientists ever actually expose their theories and ideas to test? Even if
they do, when new counter-empirical evidence is discovered, creation scientists
appear to pull back, refusing to allow their position to be falsified.” (p.75)
o Any data from evolutionary biology are reinterpreted to fit the theory’s assumptions,
thus, making it unfalsifiable
o Ad-hoc explanations to account for counter-evidence: apparent human ancestors
(e.g., Australopithecus afarensis) are actually apes
o Unclear which evidence would make a creationist change their mind 32
o Remark
▪ In the case McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982), Judge William
Overton decided that creation science is religion and not science.’
▪ Argument: Creation science fails to meet essential characteristics of science.
▪ Falsifiability is considered one of these essential characteristics.
Challenges to Falsificationism
o Popper‘s criterion might be overly simplistic: scientific theories are not rejected
whenever they conflict with empirical data.
o Instead, scientists quite often stick to their theories and try to save them by means of
auxiliary ad-hoc hypotheses.
PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
- Theoretical: aspects where people talk to each other, how do things work and are started
- Epistemology: how do we know what knowledge is
- Practical: what kind of implication do things have, if certain practises are good or bad
What do philosophers of science do?
- Generally: asking higher-level questions about science.
o Reflecting on implicit assumptions of scientific practice
o Uncovering norms and values in science
o Questioning the methods of science
o Exploring the limits of scientific knowledge and inquiry
o Do scientists think about what they are measuring and how they are doing it
Philosophical Methods
- Philosophers use different methods than scientists, as they partly address questions that
cannot be answered by same methods (e.g., how scientists act vs. how scientists should act).
o Do not gather data
o Can be interested in a question which can not be answered
- Philosophical methods: logical reasoning, thought experiments, conceptual analysis,
- One of the most central methods is the use of arguments and counter- arguments:
philosophers investigate topics by making and responding to arguments.
Premises
- To make an argument is to give a set of reasons (premises) in support of a conclusion
- The function of premises is to support the conclusion
- The conclusion should, in some way or another, follow from the premises without simply
restating them
- To make a counter-argument is to show that a conclusion does not follow from certain
premises or that the premises are false.
- Philosophers will try to argue about the premises
,SCIENCE VS. PSEUDO-SCIENCE
What is science?
- What is the common features of sciences, in contrast to disciplines that we do not consider to
be sciences?
o The distinguishing feature of science lies in the particular methods that scientists use
▪ experimentation, observation, theory construction.
o What are the exact characteristics of certain theories and methods that make them
scientific?
Distinction between science and pseudoscience
- A good starting point is to ask: what distinguishes science from pseudo- science?
o Purpose
o Normative standards
o Quantify the data
o Sensitivity to evidence
- Demarcation Problem: demarcating ‘proper’ science from look-alikes
o Theoretical value: understanding what distinguishes ‘good’ from ‘bad’ science
o Practical value: decision guidance in private, public, and academic life
Pseudoscience: Non-science posing as science
1) Not everything that classifies as non-science is pseudo-science
o e.g., theology, ethics: does not pretend to be science
2) Defenders of pseudoscience commonly promote a view that substantially deviates from the
established scientific theories
3) Demarcation is not always easy as science changes over time and science in itself is
heterogenous.
Examples pseudoscience vs science
- Vulcan: seems pseudo but had good reason to believe
o 1860: Le Verrier announced ‘discovery’ of planet Vulcan
o The problem: trajectory of Mercury couldn’t be explained by Newtonian Physics
o Le Verrier: there must be another planet to explain Mercury’s orbit
o Very difficult to observe anything in Mercury’s orbit
o Despite many attempts, no observation of Vulcan; still, many astronomers held on to
the theory
o 1916: Einstein’s Theory of Relativity explains orbit, Vulcan is abandoned
- Cryonics: not pseudo but speculative science
o Freezing & storage of corpses to be resurrected in the future
o The idea: human brain can survive w/o being constantly active
o The hope: future technology will allow for resurrection
o Status quo: only cells, tissue, and small organs have been successfully cryopreserved
& reversed
, - ‘Saviour of Mothers’
o Suspected connection between childbed fever and handling corpses
o Made handwashing mandatory: reduction in childbed fever
o Pre-germ theory: theory rejected by scientific community
o Did not have scientific feedback
- Theory of Evolution
o Darwin’s discovery of evolution by natural selection
o Replacing the idea that different species have been separately created by God
o Slow process of social and scientific acceptance
- Just because a theory is true doe not make it scientific: Methodology determines this
FALSIFICATIONISM
- Disclaimer: finding an ‘essential’ feature common to all and only those disciplines we
consider sciences seems unlikely
- However, there are clear example of science and clear examples of non- science/pseudo-
science and some central features that might guide their distinction
o Scientific endeavours aim to reveal natural regularities (‘laws’) in order to explain and
predict the occurrence of empirical phenomena
o A scientific theory must be open to be checked against experience: at least
hypothetically, it must be possible to prove a scientific theory to be false
popper
- Popper tries to identify a criterion that enables us to distinguish science from pseudo-science
o not interested in whether a theory is true or false, or if it is significant and meaningful
o interested in what guarantees the status of a theory as scientific
- Popper gives a answer to what makes a theory scientific: falsifiability, refutability, testability
- Popper’s Conclusions
1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, for nearly every theory, if we look for confirmations.
2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions
3. Every good scientific theory is a prohibition: forbids things to happen. The more the better
4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is nonscientific.
5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it.
- Testability is falsifiability
- there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to
refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.
6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it results of a genuine test of theory
o Motivates critical attitude understood as the readiness to change one’s assumptions
o In contrast to a dogmatic attitude related to pseudo-sciences, mainly aiming to
confirm and verify one’s assumptions – by all means necessary.
7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers
- for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory
ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it
rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its
scientific status.
o Conventionalist Twist
, Ad-hoc Explanation
- ad hoc explanation is formed only for a particular purpose, to address a specific problem such
as the problem of immunizing a theory from falsification by a certain anomaly.
- What makes a hypothesis ad hoc is not the content of hypothesis but motivation of why it is
proposed.
- Popper is suspicious of ad hoc explanations as they are considered to make a theory less and
less falsifiable. Thus he considers introduction of ad hoc explanations an unscientific practice.
Falsification examples
- The criterion of falsification plays a central role in many debates concerning the status of
disciplines as science or pseudo-science – with real life consequences.
- A famous example is the discussion between defenders of evolution theory and creationism –
related to the discussion of whether education in American schools should offer a ‘balanced
treatment’ of evolutionary biology and creationist science.
- Case Study: Creationism
o Creationism
▪ The universe is very young (6,000 to 20,000 years)
▪ Everything started instantaneously
▪ Human beings had ancestry separate from apes
▪ A monstrous flood once engulfed the entire earth
o “Do creation scientists ever actually expose their theories and ideas to test? Even if
they do, when new counter-empirical evidence is discovered, creation scientists
appear to pull back, refusing to allow their position to be falsified.” (p.75)
o Any data from evolutionary biology are reinterpreted to fit the theory’s assumptions,
thus, making it unfalsifiable
o Ad-hoc explanations to account for counter-evidence: apparent human ancestors
(e.g., Australopithecus afarensis) are actually apes
o Unclear which evidence would make a creationist change their mind 32
o Remark
▪ In the case McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982), Judge William
Overton decided that creation science is religion and not science.’
▪ Argument: Creation science fails to meet essential characteristics of science.
▪ Falsifiability is considered one of these essential characteristics.
Challenges to Falsificationism
o Popper‘s criterion might be overly simplistic: scientific theories are not rejected
whenever they conflict with empirical data.
o Instead, scientists quite often stick to their theories and try to save them by means of
auxiliary ad-hoc hypotheses.
