Samenvatting
Philosophy of Science Summary
- Instelling
- Universiteit Leiden (UL)
This is a summary of all the lectures, online lectures and readings of the course Philosophy of Science given at Leiden University.
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 4 van de 34 pagina's
Voorbeeld 4 van de 34 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
1 beoordeling
Door: rachelbrochus • 2 jaar geleden
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCEWEEK 2
Three levels of study:
- Established facts, hypotheses, theories, and so on: the results of science.
- How to do science. Generating or unearthing facts, creating and evaluating theories, writing
articles.
- Reflecting on science. Thinking about its nature, its aim, its scope and limits, the good and bad
aspects of science
Philosophy of science is thinking about science. But in a specific way. Not by turning science into a
subject for science, as is done in the sociology of science, the psychology of science, the anthropology of
science and the history of science. But by thinking about:
- what makes good science good;
- why we do science the way we do it;
- what kind of knowledge we can and want to acquire;
- the central concepts that we use.
- And certainly also by looking at science from a distance and being critical.
Central question -> The method of science: How do scientists think up theories, and how to they decide
whether any given theory is plausible or not?
Aristotle -> Philosopher and scientist. Wrote about many things, including logic, physics, metaphysics,
ethics, biology and art. Unlike his teacher Plato, he has an empiricist approach to knowledge.
Empiricist -> taking perception to be a source and justification of knowledge.
An empirical scientist needs a method that tells
- What is relevant to investigate
- How we should investigate it
- Which conclusions we can draw from our investigations.
Aristotle’s Natural motion -> not forced motion -> why do things fall down
Aristotle’s explanations -> Facts that have been discovered need to be explained by giving various
causes. Aristotle recognises several kinds of cause. For us, the most obvious is the efficient cause, that
which sets a process in motion. But Aristotle believes that there are also final causes, that is, causes that
point towards a final aim or goal. The aim of a seed is to grow into a tree, and for Aristotle this is an
important part of the explanation of its growth.
Aristotle’s complexity -> Aristotle wants scientists to do justice to all the appearances, however
complex and varied these may turn out to be. Result: uses almost no mathematics in his science,
including in his physics.
1
,Aristotelianism -> Aristotelian science in the (early) Renaissance has the following characteristics:
- Partly empirical, but without experimentation.
- Partly based on authority instead of original research.
- A generally authoritarian way of reading.
- Doing justice to all the appearances.
- Uses teleological explanations.
- Very little mathematics (with some exceptions).
Scientific Revolution -> Time period during which modern science is formed. Roughly the 17th century;
specific years are sometimes placed at 1543 – 1687. But from the point of view of the humanities, there
is a long trajectory leading up to this, starting in the 14th century and reaching maturity in the 16 th.
Scientific Revolution
The new science has the following characteristics:
- Use of experiments.
- Use of mathematics.
- Search for purely mechanical explanations; teleology is rejected.
- Theories don't have to describe correctly everything that happens, only the underlying
phenomena.
Humanities -> From the 14th century, humanism comes into existence. In science this starts mostly as a
search for old manuscripts. This leads to better knowledge of classical sciences and anew way of
engaging with old texts; critical. Strong influence of the natural sciences on the method of the
humanities.
- Teleological explanations are not allowed.
- Theory only has to explain the underlying patterns.
- More and more also a use of quantitative methods.
Copernicus -> In 1543 the posthumous De revolutionibus orbium coelestium by Nicolaus Copernicus
appears. In this book, a heliocentrical view of the world is defended
Heliocentrical view of the world -> This theory conflicts with important elements of Aristotelian physics.
But Copernicus doesn't use a new kind of method, or new kinds of arguments.
Vesalius -> In 1543, Andreas Vesalius publishes his De humani corporis fabrica. Anatomical book based
on his own observations. Against the authority of the Roman doctor Galen (about 129 – 199).
Copernicus and Vesalius -> attack ancient authorities, not the method of Aristotle.
Galilei -> Rejects the difference between natural and forced motion, giving experiments scientific value.
Sometimes he practices what he preaches. Galilei claims that all objects fall at the same speed. This isn't
true in practice, but according to Galilei these are 'disturbances' of the 'real' phenomenon.
Isaac Newton -> His Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687) was the crowning achievement
of the Scientific Revolution. Extremely popular.
2
, MENTIMETER QUESTIONS
Question 1
Experiments are essential for Aristotelian science
-> False, because of his distinction between natural motion and forced motion, Aristotle rejects the idea
that we can learn about nature by something as artificial as an experiment.
Question 2
Which of the following claims about the Scientific Revolution are correct?
1. The Scientific Revolution introduced new ideals, methods, techniques and modes of
explanation.
2. The Scientific Revolution parted with ordinary, daily experience, and chose instead for the
artificial setting of experiments.
3. The Scientific Revolution was a conflict between scientific reason and religious dogma.
4. An important aspect of the Scientific Revolution was the rejection of the heliocentric worldview.
-> 1 and 2 are correct. The third claim is false because the Scientific Revolution was a conflict between
two competing conceptions of science, rather than between science and religion. Moreover, science in
the 16th and 17th century left religious dogmas intact. The fourth claim is false because the heliocentric
view was not rejected but embraced during the Scientific Revolution.
3
, WEEK 3 & 4
Science and scientists have authority; most reliable source of knowledge. Why?
- Scientists reach free consensus/agreement through criticism and discussion. This doesn’t really
happen in other areas of society. For example, in politics, people never agree on anything. And
somehow, in science, that is the case.
When is it not possible to reach consensus using arguments?
- When you start from different beliefs, and/or
- When you accept different kinds of arguments
So apparently, scientists have shared beliefs and shared kinds of argument.
The standard view
Also called logical empiricism or logical positivism -> this is the received view of science. This has to do
with logic; the way of argumentation and with empiricism; importance of observations/of doing
empirical research. Scientists do not agree about which theories are true, at least not at first. But in
general, they can agree about observations, if these are objective and repeatable. Then we ought to
derive our theories from these observations. If we agree on the observations, and on the method of
logic to get from these observations to theories, then we will agree on the theories as well.
Graphical rendering of the standard view
- We start with observations (O)
- And Theory (T) only comes afterwards.
- This answers our questions about science very well
What makes science special?
- It is based on precise, well documented observations
- Which are repeatable and objective
- Theories are tested against observations until consensus is reached
- Scientists are honest and critical towards others and themselves
- Only the truth counts
The standard view raised a number of questions
- How objective are observations?
- What are the accepted ways of deriving theories from observations ?
- Do scientists really reach free consensus ? -> Funding is important in science. They discourage
certain researches by not funding them and encourage others by funding them. Doesn’t that
spoil the idea of freedom?
- Are scientists as critical as this story implies ? -> Scientists usually have all sorts of biases
(conformation bias), so they’re usually not as critical as the standard view implies.
- And what about truth? -> The standard view is all about the truth. However, isn’t it much more
the case that science is after what works, whether it’s true or not. If there is a theory which
enable us to make a coffee machine, we do not care about whether these theories are true or
not, we care if this theory can make us achieve certain results. Truth seems to become less
important that applicability.
4
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper lotjevannorren. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €4,98. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 53068 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen