Philosophy of Science and Free Markets
Overview:
Week 1 science vs. pseudoscience; what is philosophy of science
Week 2 bias overview and the importance of critical thinking
Week 3 why are we irrational?; system 1 and system 2
Week 4 demarcation criterion; conspiracy theories; religion; irrationality in everyday life
Week 5 how to avoid irrationality
Week 6 why critical thinking is important, progress and morality
Week 7 scientific method; demarcation criterion
Week 1
Article: What is science?
An attempt to understand, explain and predict the world we live in. However, many other subjects
do that. The distinguishing feature is the methods and the way of explaining (experiments, theories).
The origin of science is in the 1500-1750. Before there was Aristotelianism. Then there was a
scientific revolution, Copernican revolution. He understood that the Sun was at the center of the
universe, not the Earth. Copernicus, together with Kepler, Galilei and Newton changed the view of
the world. The emphasis was always on hypothesis testing, these scientists had a very empirical
approach.
So what is Philosophy of science?
Analyse the methods of enquiry used in various sciences. Philosophers therefore try to probe deeper
and to uncover assumptions that are implicit in scientific practice. They ask for example if it is fair to
assume that in the future the repetitions of the same experiment will yield the same result, or how
do we know it is true.
Scientists sometimes contribute to Philosophy of science when they ask questions about how
science should proceed, what methods of enquiry it should use, how much confidence should we
place in those methods, whether there are limits to scientific knowledge and so on.
One of the typical problems in philosophy of science is how to distinguish science from
pseudoscience. Karl Popper, a philosopher of the 20 th century, thought that the fundamental feature
of science should be falsifiability. It means that the theory should make definite predictions that can
be tested. If these predictions turn out false, the theory has been disproved. A falsifiable theory is
one that we might discover to be false. The theories that don’t satisfy this criterion should be called
pseudoscience. For example Freud’s psychoanalytic theory or Marx’s theory of history. The theories
could be made compatible with any possible course of events. So they are not scientific theories.
Einstein’s theory, however, made very specific predictions that could be proven or disproven by
observations. This theory satisfies the criterion of falsifiability.
Popper distinguished science from pseudoscience because pseudoscience made theories that could
fit any empirical data whatsoever. However, some scientists also did that. They explain away every
kind of data that appeared in conflict with their theories, rather than accepting that their theories
,had been refuted. It lead to very important scientific discoveries. For example, astronomy. When
they discovered a new planet, Uranus.
In general scientists do not just abandon their theories whenever they conflict with data. They
usually look for ways to eliminate the conflict without having to give up their theory. Also because
virtually every theory in science conflicts with some observation and finding a theory that fits all the
data perfectly is very difficult. So there may not be a simple criterion which enables us to make a
distinction. For example, there is no fixed set of features that define a game, rather there is a loose
cluster of features, most of which are possessed by most games, but any particular game may lack
any of the features and still be a game. The same may be for science.
Clip: What is philosophy of science?
It is concerned with a central question: what is science? It seems like a question with a
straightforward answer, but we are actually asking about the features that all sciences have in
common. Sciences try to explain reality and predict phenomena. But for example astrology and
astronomy both try to explain philosophy. But the first one is defined pseudoscience and the second
one is defined as science. So what is the difference between the two? And what is the relation
between scientific theories and the world? Good sciences will make good predictions about the
world. Moreover, how is science developed over time? Some think that it is a gradual process, some
think that there are some revolutionary theories that discard everything said up until that point.
What is the use of philosophy of science? Philosophers tend to deal with each specific science, for
instance some deal with Economics. They think for example that the theories cannot be objective,
value free. The way we even start to experiment shows our views. Moreover, they discuss the
assumptions of each science, for example Homo Economicus. Behavioural economics understood
that agents are not rational and this irrationality is quite systematic. These theories will shape
society to a certain extent, by advising policy. So assuming that people are rational can lead to
problems, for example the financial crisis of 2008.
So philosophy shouldn’t be making theories from an ivory tower. It is a way of thinking, it is a
rational, critical way of thinking. It was born when some people did not rely on stories to explain the
world, they tried to explain it with their perception. It is radically critical. Science was born out of this
rational way of thinking, but philosophy adopts a radically critical way of thinking. Scientists are
critical in the way that they try to test their hypotheses, but are not radical because they don’t
question their own funding assumptions (ex. Physicists don’t question their ability to use
mathematics to solve the problems). Philosophers are radically critical because they question the
roots of their thinking. Philosophy also adopts a broad perspective, using insights from many
subjects to think about some kind of societal issues. Philosophy is used to elucidate many concepts
and question assumptions made by sciences; then they cross scientific boundaries to adopt a
multidisciplinary perspective. Philosophy of science is very concerned with the process, in science
lots of the attention is on the theories themselves, but we need to understand how these theories
came to reality. We don’t focus on what is presented to us in a plate, but what happens in the
kitchen. We need to care about the thinking, the developing of the theories.
We are going to focus on thinking and where that thinking can go wrong, making systematic
reasoning errors and what the consequences of these reasoning errors can be (looking at how we
can protect ourself with the scientific methods from reasoning errors).
Week 2
Script: Predictably Irrational
, What is critical thinking? It is rational thinking, it aims to generate justified beliefs by systematically
analysing the way in which beliefs have been formed. It means assessing the reliability of our beliefs
by thinking of how they were formed. It consists in forming beliefs in a rational (not intuitive or
emotional) and autonomous (not relying on tradition and authority) way.
Critical thinking doesn’t aim to undermine any claim. It doesn’t lead to scepticism, it is not intelligent
thinking. Sometimes intelligent thinking on the contrary leads to very uncritical beliefs, like
conspiracy theories. And it is not well informed thinking. It is a necessary condition but not a
sufficient condition, because we can misinterpret information.
Critical thinking wants to distinguish sense from nonsense, good from bad arguments, reliable from
unreliable thinking. We need to focus on our thinking apparatus. We weren’t born with the ability to
think critically, we need to learn to do so and often it goes against our spontaneous way of thinking,
which could lead us to reasoning errors. We are all exposed to irrational thinking, even intelligent
people, they may even be more exposed because they are more able to defend those views against
counterarguments.
Why is it important to think critically? It has a big impact on our daily lives. We take decisions daily,
both trivial and far-reaching decisions. And it is relatively new in the history of mankind, never had
to make so many (which career, who to marry…). For example in the Middle ages all these things
were a given, life was set even before it started. But today in our Western democracies it is not the
case.
So as a result we become dependent on information, we are flooded in information, but not all of it
is reliable, what is and what isn’t we have to understand ourselves. So much misinformation goes
viral, for example detox cure. These big claims have no or insufficient proof. Moreover, nonsense
breeds more nonsense, illusions and irrational and erroneous views tend to branch out in our
thinking. Nonsense belongs in every era and culture. Even though it seems completely absurd to
outsiders, people within groups that hold these vires are not aware of the bizarre nature of their
convictions. In the past they believed in witchcraft, but know we have widespread superstitions
(touch wood, Friday 13th..), detox, religion..
The fact that these illusions are coherent with our worldview makes it difficult to expose them. Our
common sense/ intuition cannot expose illusions, normal thinking leads us astray, we go from one
cognitive trap to another and it makes us predictably irrational (Dan Ariely).
We can set our thinking straight with 3 rules of thumb:
1. Don’t accept a claim just because it sounds plausible (because our intuition is misleading),
we need to look at external supports to assess its reliability. The amount of external support
needed depends on the claim. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, same thing
goes for alternative forms of medicine, conspiracy theories and theories that go against the
scientific consensus. Because consensus is supported by a large amount of evidence and has
been through a reliable process.
2. Use ‘Occam’s Razor’: the most economical or parsimonious explanation is often the best. If a
possible explanation raises a whole series of other questions that require an explanation, it
is probably not the right one
3. We must be aware of a series of cognitive pitfalls, cognitive illusions are similar to perceptual
illusions: they are permanent, systematic (our thinking is distorted in the same way) and
universal. Human illusions are variations of the same themes. They are permanent because
even if we are aware of the cognitive pitfalls that lead to illusions, we still tend to make the
