ALL Lectures of 'Philosophy of Science and Ethics' (AB_1217)
11 views 0 purchase
Course
Philosophy of science and ethics (AB_1217)
Institution
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU)
All the lectures of 'Philosophy of Science and Ethics' (AB_1217) are elaborated and explained in detail in this summary. I passed the course with a 9 thanks to this summary :)
Lecture 1 What is science? Philosophy of science
Lecture 2 Forms of inference Philosophy of science
Lecture 3 Realism and anti-realism Philosophy of science
Lecture 4 Science and society Philosophy of science
Lecture 5 What is ethics? Ethics
Lecture 6 Moral Status and Animal Ethics Ethics
Lecture 7 Personhood Ethics
Lecture 8 Vaccination Ethics Ethics
, Lecture 1
What is Science?
Philosophy of science Theoretical philosophy
Ethics Practical philosophy (what implications do things have?)
What do philosophers of science do?
Generally: asking higher-level questions about science, (from a meta-perspective) how
does science actually work?
- Reflecting on implicit assumptions of scientific practice
- Uncovering norms and values in science
- Questioning the methods of science
- Exploring the limits of scientific knowledge and inquiry
What methods do philosophers use?
Philosophers use different methods than scientists (e.g., no data collection), as they partly
address questions that cannot be answered by the same methods (e.g., how scientists act
vs. how scientists should act).
Philosophical methods: logical reasoning, thought experiments, conceptual analysis, et
cetera. One of the most central methods is the use of arguments and counter-arguments:
philosophers investigate topics by making and responding to arguments.
Philosophical methos
- To make an argument is to give a set of reasons/assumptions (‘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 (a philosopher tries to show that the premises
were wrong to begin with)
Science vs. Pseudo-Science
The first question that we should ask is: What is science? What is the common feature of
sciences, in contrast to disciplines that we do not consider to be sciences?
Common answer: the distinguishing feature of science lies in the particular methods that
scientists use: experimentation, observation, and theory construction. One could easily
,construct a counter-argument against this answer. In order to avoid this, we should ask:
What are the exact characteristics of certain theories and methods that makes them sci-
entific?
* being critical, how data fits into the existing knowledge, being sensitive to answers.
* demarcation: grensscheiding.
A good starting point is to ask: What distinguishes science from pseudoscience?
Demarcation problem: How do we demarcate ‘proper’ science from lookalikes?
- Theoretical value: understanding distinguishes ‘good’ from ‘bad’ science
- Practical value: decision guidance in private, public, and academic life
Pseudoscience: non-science posing as science
N.B1.: not everything classified as non-science is pseudoscience (e.g., theology, ethics).
N.B2.: defenders of pseudoscience commonly promote a view that substantially deviates
from the established scientific theories (e.g., fraud is specific scientific to projects such as
manipulation of data vs. postulation of new entities and laws such as homeopathy.
N.B3.: demarcation is not always easy as science changes over time and science in itself
is heterogenous.
Example: Vulcan
- 1860: Le Verrier announced the ‘discovery’ of the planet Vulcan
- The problem: Mercury’s trajectory couldn’t be explained by Newtonian physics
- Le Verrier: there must be another planet to explain Mercury’s orbit (but it is very diffi-
cult to observe anything in Mercury’s orbit)
- Despite many attempts, there was no observation of Vulcan; still, many astronomers
held on to the theory of its existence
- 1916: Einstein’s theory of relativity explains Mercury’s orbit, abandoning Vulcan theory
Example: Cryonics
- Freezing and storage of corpses to be resurrected in the future
- The idea: the human brain can survive without being constantly active
- The hope: future technology will allow for resurrection
- Status quo: only cells, tissues, and small organs have been successfully cryopreserved
and reversed.
, Example: Saviour of Mothers
- Suspected connection between childbed fever and handling corpses
- Made handwashing mandatory: reduction in childbed fever
- Pre-germ theory: theory rejected by the scientific community
Example: Theory of evolution
- Darwin’s discovery of evolution by natural selection
- Replacing the idea that different species have been separately created by God
- Slow process of social and scientific acceptance
How can we exactly distinguish sciences from pseudo-sciences? What characteristics make
certain theories and methods scientific and others unscientific? > falsificationism.
* just because it’s not true, does not necessarily means that it is pseudoscience.
* social acceptance isn’t necessarily a criterium for something being pseudoscience or not.
* same goes for ethics.
Falsificationism
- Disclaimer: finding an ‘essential’ feature common to all and only those disciplines that
we consider sciences seems unlikely
- However, there are clear examples of science and clear examples of non-science/pseu-
doscience and some central features that might guide their distinction
- Scientific endeavours aim to reveal natural regularities (‘laws’) in order to explain and
predict the occurrence of empirical phenomena
• This might help to distinguish science from non-science (e.g., theology, ethics)
- A scientific theory must be open to be checked against experience: at least hypotheti-
cally, it must be possible to prove a scientific theory to be false
• Might this help us to distinguish science from pseudoscience?
Falsificationism
Popper (1963) tried to identify a single criterion that enables us to distinguish science from
pseudoscience. He is not interested in whether a theory is true of false, or whether a theory
is significant/meaningful. He is only interested in what guarantees the status of a theory
as scientific. Popper gave a very short answer to the question of what makes a theory
scientific:
1. Falsifiability
2. Refutability
3. Testability
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller wjj3008. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $10.70. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
