Week 1
Lecture 07.02
Introduction: what’s it all about?
About me
- Jeroen de Ridder
- Associate Professor of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, VU
- Professor by special appointment of Philosophy University of Groningen
- Epistemology, philosophy of science, philosophy of religion
Today’s program
- Philosophy of science
- Course overview
- Course organization
Science vs. non-science
- What distinguishes science from non-science?
- What’s special about scientific knowledge as opposed to other kinds of information
or knowledge?
→ This is one example of philosophy of science question
Philosophy of science
- The social world
- The real world
- Philosophy of social science: investigating the social sciences
- Social science: investigating the social world
- The social world
- What distinguishes science from non-science?
- How does one get from observations to theories, models, explanations?
- What is a (good) scientific theory, explanation, model?
- Is scientific knowledge objective? What is objectivity?
- What role is there for values in science, if any?
- Are there ethical or other limits to science?
- What goals should science serve?
What’s so special about science?
- A popular answer: the scientific method
- This makes science:
o Reliable/trustworthy
o Objective
o Independent
o Verifiable/replicable
,Reality check
- All is not well with science
o Fraud
o Questionable research practices
o Bias, sloppiness
o Failing peer review
o Replication crisis
o Bad incentives for researchers
The replication crisis 1: Psychology
- 100 influential studies from three prestigious psychology journals
- Only 36% successfully replicated
- Effect sizes ~50% of original
The replication crisis 2: economics
- 6700 studies
- Half of them have ~90% of results underpowered
- of those with adequate power (≥0.8), ~80% of effect sizes are exaggerated by
factor 2, often more
The replication crisis 3: social science
- 12 high-profile studies
- 13 of those replicate (62%)
- Effect size 50% of original
The case of ‘the lying Dutchman’
- Diederik Stapel
- Until 2011, highly successful 15+ years career in social psychology at three different
universities
- Built on outright fraud: data fabrication
How common is scientific fraud?
- Probably not very,
- But hard to ascertain for obvious reasons …
- retractionwatch.com
Sloppy science and questionable research practices
- Stopping data collection early (when significance is reached) or continuing until
significance is reached
- Hypothesizing After the Results are Known (HARKing)
- Concealing results that contradict earlier findings
- Using creative/inappropriate analyses
- Not publishing negative (null) results
- Selective citing
- Demanding authorship without contributing
, - Poor supervision
National survey research integrity (2020)
- 8% of researchers committed fraud (fabrication, falsification, plagiarism) in the past 3
years
- 51% admitted to engaging in questionable research practices (e.g., hiding flaws,
selective citing, etc.)
- ~6800 respondents all Dutch universities from PhD students to full professors
What’s special about science?
- Maybe the scientific method isn’t all it’s cracked up to be?
- Or at least scientists don’t always follow it rigorously.
- Hence, reason to think critically about what (good) science is
→ philosophy of science
Explaining polarization
- Ezra Klein (co-founder of Vox.com)
- Polarization caused by our innate instincts for us vs. them thinking, which lead us to
dislike outgroups, compete with them, and take pleasure in their losses
- Combined with social sorting and the formation of ‘mega-identities’
Review of why we’re polarized
- Stephen Metcalf (critic at Slate mag)
- What about people’s beliefs, intentions, reasons, plans, interests, etc. in the
explanation of polarization?
- Polarization was also very much a consciously devised political strategy, rather than
some foisted upon us blindly by our genes
Insider vs. outsider perspective in explaining human behavior
Course theme 1: Naturalism
- Are the social sciences different from the natural sciences? And, if so, how?
- Human beings have this insiders’s perspective
- Studying people and society vs. studying physical particles, objects, systems
- Insider vs. outsider perspective
- Understanding vs. explaining
- Are there laws of nature, causality, mechanisms in the social sciences?
Explaining polarization
- Polarization caused by our innate instincts for us vs. them thinking,
- These instincts are in turn explained by evolutionary theory
- Ingroup favoritism was good for survival in our evolutionary history
- Is social science ultimately a branch of biology?
, Course theme 2: Reductionism
- Is social science reducible to psychology and neuroscience, or even further to the
natural sciences?
- Or are they irreducible and are social-level descriptions, theories, and explanations
ineliminable?
- Methodological individualism
- Is talk about ‘families’, ‘organizations’, ‘institutions’, ‘nations’, etc. shorthand for talk
about individuals and their actions?
- Should a good explanation be couched in terms of individuals?
Course theme 3: Normativity
Normativity of social science
- Should (and can) social science be value-free?
- What does that mean and what does it have to do with objectivity, neutrality, and
trustworthiness?
eNormativity in social science
- What role do values, norms, and rules play in explaining human behavior?
- And what are they?
Course activities
- Lectures 9
- Seminare 3
- Tutorials in smaller groups 3, mandatory participation
- Nine short assignments, one after each lecture (20 pts)
- Paper in which you apply course material to your own discipline (~1000 words) (20
pts)
- Multiple choice exam (March 30, 15.30h) (60 pts)
Lecture 09.02
Standard image of science
Objectivity and values
Today’s program
- Standard image of science, part I: Logical positivism & standard positivism
- Objectivity and values in social science
Common sense view of science
- Based on empirical observation, not speculation or preconceived ideas
- Describing the world as it is in itself Outsider’s (third person) perspective
- Neutral, value free
- Formulated in exact theories, if possible using math / statistics
- Good science must be based on empirical observation
Lecture 07.02
Introduction: what’s it all about?
About me
- Jeroen de Ridder
- Associate Professor of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, VU
- Professor by special appointment of Philosophy University of Groningen
- Epistemology, philosophy of science, philosophy of religion
Today’s program
- Philosophy of science
- Course overview
- Course organization
Science vs. non-science
- What distinguishes science from non-science?
- What’s special about scientific knowledge as opposed to other kinds of information
or knowledge?
→ This is one example of philosophy of science question
Philosophy of science
- The social world
- The real world
- Philosophy of social science: investigating the social sciences
- Social science: investigating the social world
- The social world
- What distinguishes science from non-science?
- How does one get from observations to theories, models, explanations?
- What is a (good) scientific theory, explanation, model?
- Is scientific knowledge objective? What is objectivity?
- What role is there for values in science, if any?
- Are there ethical or other limits to science?
- What goals should science serve?
What’s so special about science?
- A popular answer: the scientific method
- This makes science:
o Reliable/trustworthy
o Objective
o Independent
o Verifiable/replicable
,Reality check
- All is not well with science
o Fraud
o Questionable research practices
o Bias, sloppiness
o Failing peer review
o Replication crisis
o Bad incentives for researchers
The replication crisis 1: Psychology
- 100 influential studies from three prestigious psychology journals
- Only 36% successfully replicated
- Effect sizes ~50% of original
The replication crisis 2: economics
- 6700 studies
- Half of them have ~90% of results underpowered
- of those with adequate power (≥0.8), ~80% of effect sizes are exaggerated by
factor 2, often more
The replication crisis 3: social science
- 12 high-profile studies
- 13 of those replicate (62%)
- Effect size 50% of original
The case of ‘the lying Dutchman’
- Diederik Stapel
- Until 2011, highly successful 15+ years career in social psychology at three different
universities
- Built on outright fraud: data fabrication
How common is scientific fraud?
- Probably not very,
- But hard to ascertain for obvious reasons …
- retractionwatch.com
Sloppy science and questionable research practices
- Stopping data collection early (when significance is reached) or continuing until
significance is reached
- Hypothesizing After the Results are Known (HARKing)
- Concealing results that contradict earlier findings
- Using creative/inappropriate analyses
- Not publishing negative (null) results
- Selective citing
- Demanding authorship without contributing
, - Poor supervision
National survey research integrity (2020)
- 8% of researchers committed fraud (fabrication, falsification, plagiarism) in the past 3
years
- 51% admitted to engaging in questionable research practices (e.g., hiding flaws,
selective citing, etc.)
- ~6800 respondents all Dutch universities from PhD students to full professors
What’s special about science?
- Maybe the scientific method isn’t all it’s cracked up to be?
- Or at least scientists don’t always follow it rigorously.
- Hence, reason to think critically about what (good) science is
→ philosophy of science
Explaining polarization
- Ezra Klein (co-founder of Vox.com)
- Polarization caused by our innate instincts for us vs. them thinking, which lead us to
dislike outgroups, compete with them, and take pleasure in their losses
- Combined with social sorting and the formation of ‘mega-identities’
Review of why we’re polarized
- Stephen Metcalf (critic at Slate mag)
- What about people’s beliefs, intentions, reasons, plans, interests, etc. in the
explanation of polarization?
- Polarization was also very much a consciously devised political strategy, rather than
some foisted upon us blindly by our genes
Insider vs. outsider perspective in explaining human behavior
Course theme 1: Naturalism
- Are the social sciences different from the natural sciences? And, if so, how?
- Human beings have this insiders’s perspective
- Studying people and society vs. studying physical particles, objects, systems
- Insider vs. outsider perspective
- Understanding vs. explaining
- Are there laws of nature, causality, mechanisms in the social sciences?
Explaining polarization
- Polarization caused by our innate instincts for us vs. them thinking,
- These instincts are in turn explained by evolutionary theory
- Ingroup favoritism was good for survival in our evolutionary history
- Is social science ultimately a branch of biology?
, Course theme 2: Reductionism
- Is social science reducible to psychology and neuroscience, or even further to the
natural sciences?
- Or are they irreducible and are social-level descriptions, theories, and explanations
ineliminable?
- Methodological individualism
- Is talk about ‘families’, ‘organizations’, ‘institutions’, ‘nations’, etc. shorthand for talk
about individuals and their actions?
- Should a good explanation be couched in terms of individuals?
Course theme 3: Normativity
Normativity of social science
- Should (and can) social science be value-free?
- What does that mean and what does it have to do with objectivity, neutrality, and
trustworthiness?
eNormativity in social science
- What role do values, norms, and rules play in explaining human behavior?
- And what are they?
Course activities
- Lectures 9
- Seminare 3
- Tutorials in smaller groups 3, mandatory participation
- Nine short assignments, one after each lecture (20 pts)
- Paper in which you apply course material to your own discipline (~1000 words) (20
pts)
- Multiple choice exam (March 30, 15.30h) (60 pts)
Lecture 09.02
Standard image of science
Objectivity and values
Today’s program
- Standard image of science, part I: Logical positivism & standard positivism
- Objectivity and values in social science
Common sense view of science
- Based on empirical observation, not speculation or preconceived ideas
- Describing the world as it is in itself Outsider’s (third person) perspective
- Neutral, value free
- Formulated in exact theories, if possible using math / statistics
- Good science must be based on empirical observation
