Summary
Summary Samir Okasha - Philosophy of Science
- Course
- Institution
- Book
Okasha, Samir, Philosophy of Science. A Very Short Introduction, 2nd edition;
[Show more]
Connected book
Book Title:
Author(s):
- Edition:
- ISBN:
- Edition:
More summaries for
-
Summary Week 1-7 + articles, Philosophy of Science
-
Philosophy of Science and Ethics : Summary of books (Okasha, Blackburn, DeGrazia, Miller and Attfield), Utrecht University
1 review
By: jpserenity • 2 year ago
Seller
Follow
Emmadejong123
Reviews received
Content preview
Okasha Chapter 1 – What is Science?Philosophers rather ask themselves: What is it that makes something a science, instead of what is
science?
Science is an attempt to understand, explain, and predict the world that we live in. – but is it the
whole story?
Many people believe that the distinguishing features of science lie in the particular methods
scientists use to investigate the world. An obvious example is the use of experiments, which
historically marks a turning-point in the development of modern science.
Another important feature of science of science is the construction of
theories – scientists do not simply record the results of experiment and observation in a log book,
but they usually want to explain those results in terms of a general theory.
One of the main tasks of philosophy of science is to understand how techniques such as
experimentation, observation, and theory construction have enabled scientists to unravel so many of
nature’s secrets.
The origins of modern science
History of science is indispensable for doing good philosophy of science. The origins of modern
science lied in a period of rapid scientific development that occurred in Europe between about 1500
and 1750, which we now refer to as the scientific revolution.
Earlier, the dominant worldview was Aristotelianism.
The first crucial step towards the modern scientific worldview was the Copernican revolution.
Copernicus attacked the geocentric model of the universe, which placed the stationary earth at the
center of the universe with planets and the sun in orbit around it.
Copernicus suggested an alternative: the sun was the fixed center of the universe, and the
planets, including earth, were in orbit around it – heliocentric.
Copernicus’ work led to modern physics, through the work of Johannes Kepler (planets move
in ellipses) and Galileo Galilei (telescope).
Descartes developed a radical new ‘mechanical philosophy, according to which the physical world
consists of inert particles of matter interacting and colliding with one another. – its acceptance
marked the final downfall of the Aristotelian worldview.
The scientific revolution culminated the work of Isaac Newton. Newton agreed with the mechanical
philosophers that the universe consists simply of particles in motion, and sought to improve on
Descartes’ theory. – universal gravitation.
Confidence in the Newtonian picture was shattered in the early 20 century, thanks to two
th
revolutionary new developments in physics: relativity theory and quantum mechanics. Relativity
theory, discovered by Einstein, showed that Newtonian mechanics does not give the right results
when applied to very massive objects. Quantum mechanics shows that the Newtonian theory does
not work when applied on very small scale.
Darwin – natural selection, first people believed that species had been separately created by God.
Watson and Crick – DNA, why offspring look like their parents. Development of molecular biology.
What is philosophy of science?
, The principal task of PoS is to analyze the methods of enquiry used in the sciences. Philosophical
reflection can uncover assumptions that are implicit in scientific enquiry. PoS questions assumptions
that scientists take for granted.
Science and pseudo-science
Karl Popper – an influential 20 -century philosopher of science, thought that the fundamental feature
th
of a scientific theory is that it should be falsifiable. Falsifiable is not the same as false, rather it means
that the theory makes some definite predictions which are capable of being tested against
experience. If these predictions turn out to be wrong, then the theory has been falsified, or
disproved. Popper thought that some scientific theories did not satisfy this condition
and thus did not deserve to be called science at all: they were merely pseudo-science.
Freud’s psychoanalytic theory was one of Popper’s favorite examples of
pseudo-science.
Marx’s theory of history, Marx claimed that in industrialized societies around the world, capitalism
would give way to socialism and ultimately to communism. This didn’t happen, but instead of
admitting that Marx’s theory was wrong, Marxists would invent an ad hoc explanation for why what
had happened was actually perfectly consistent with their theory.
Marx theory could be made compatible with any possible course of events, just like Freud’s.
therefore neither theory qualifies as genuinely scientific, according to Popper’s criterion.
Chapter 2 : Scientific reasoning
Scientists reach conclusions by a process of reasoning or inference. The nature of scientific reasoning
through deduction and induction, of which they make an important distinction.
Deductive reasoning or inference is from big to small.
- All Frenchmen like red wine
- Pierre is a Frenchmen
o Therefore, Pierre likes red wine
The first two statements are called the premises of the inference and the third the conclusion. This is
deductive, because if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true too. The inference is
deductive, because of the existence of an appropriate relation between premises and conclusion.
Whether the premisses are actually true is a different matter.
Inductive reasoning: small to big
- The first five eggs in the box were rotten
- All the eggs have the same best-before date stamped on them
o Therefore, the sixth egg will be rotten too.
Premisses of this inference does not entail the conclusion. It is possible that the sixth egg will be
rotten too. It is logically possible for the premisses of this inference to be true and yet conclusion to
be false. We move from premisses about objects to conclusions about objects we haven’t examined.
Scientists use inductive reasoning whenever they move from limited data to a more general
conclusion, which they do all the time
Use this in everyday life: because we see it every day, we think it will be this way
Deductive reasoning is safer than inductive reasoning; with deductive reasoning we start with true
premises and end with true conclusions, while inductive reasoning takes us from true premisses to a
false conclusion. Although; a scientific theory can never be proved true.
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 Emmadejong123. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $3.75. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
67474 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now