Les 1
Do atoms exist?
→ alternatively: is there such a thing as a human mind? Do numbers exist? Are there
biological races? Is water H2O? -> metafysische vragen over wat er werkelijk bestaat
A ‘normal’ response: “Yes, of course"
Philosopher's questions: "Ok, but why? What’s the reason this exists?"
A ‘normal’ response: "Because science says so"
Philosopher's questions: “Which science?"
A ‘normal’ response: “Our best scientific theory”
Philosopher's questions: "What makes a scientific theory better than another? And
are we sure that there is a best one?"
A ‘normal’ response: “Just use the scientific method”
Philosopher's questions: "What is that? Is there even a scientific method?”
Ancient Greeks’ understanding of an atom: smallest possible unit of matter; eternal,
unchangeable, indestructible, indivisible, uncuttable Dit was een puur filosofisch idee
zonder experimenten
Thomson:
- Proposed a plum pudding model of the atom (1904)
- A solid sphere of positive charge within the middle electrons, sprinkled
in like plums into pudding.
We don’t think of this model when we think about atoms.
Eerste poging om elektronen te integreren in een atoommodel
Rutherford:
- Model of the atom (1911)
- Positively charged nucleus orbited by electrons with empty space in between
- Has superseded the Thomson model because of experiments: it was proven
to be better Gebaseerd op experimenten, daarom beter dan Thomson
We think of this model when we think about atoms.
Do atoms exist? as an example of the core metaphysical and epistemological
questions of the philosophy of science
Metaphysics: what entities exist? What there is, in what sense of "existing",… and
what is their nature?
Epistemology: what is knowledge? Deals with knowledge in general: how do we
obtain, transmit, store, and compare knowledge?
Metaphysics and epistemology are deeply intertwined → to know what's out
there, you need to know it exists before asking how → Which one is more fundamental? They are for sure the
baseline ofphilosophy; core disciplines.
Metafysica Epistemologie
onderzoekt wat bestaat en wat de aard van
onderzoekt wat kennis is en hoe we kennis
die dingen is (wat is er, en in welke zin
verkrijgen en beoordelen.
bestaat het?
= samen vormen ze de kern van de filosofie.
Overview of the philosophy of science of the past 100 years
Layman's verificationism (1900 - today)
Scientific theories are always verified; you can verify theories (smoking causes cancer,
climate change) → problem: how to verify something? We only observe so much, there’s
much more we can’t observe/verify. Theorieën lijken bevestigd te worden, maar nooit
volledig te bewijzen
Popper's falsificationism (1930s)
Rather than saying we can verify whether scientific theories are true, we need to falsificate
them, that’s how we know something is scientific, what is real science and what is not? Is
creationism a proper science? Een theorie is wetenschappelijk als ze weerlegbaar(to refute) is, je kunt
tegenvoorbeelden geven. Als een theorie niet te weerleggen is dan is ze niet wetenschappelijk.
,Kuhn's historicism (1960s)
What's actually happening in science → problem: he doesn't answer the question of what
science is, only interested in giving historical prospect Richt zich op hoe wetenschap
historisch verandert en niet wat wetenschap is.
Lakatos's rational reconstructions (later 1960s)
It’s important to give an answer on what makes a scientific theory better than another
scientific theory Combineert Popper en Kuhn; theorieën geëvalueerd binnen
onderzoeksprogramma’s
- Theorien achteraf eenvoudig en logisch voorstellen, ook al waren ze in werkelijkheid ingewikkeld en
moeilijk te ontwikkelen(develop)
Wrm? Wetenschap kunnen beoordelen en vergelijken en zien welke theorie rationeel beter
was.
Feyerabend's methodological anarchism (1970s) “anything goes”**
Seems to be giving up on rationality (this was hated by people) Stelt dat er geen vaste of
universele wetenschappelijke methode bestaat. Dit werd door velen gezien als afstand
nemen van rationaliteit en daarom sterk bekritiseerd.
Bloor's sociological reductionism (1970s)
We need to have sociological accounts on how people believe what as they do, regardless
of if their beliefs are true or not Het gaat om waarom mensen iets geloven, niet om de
waarheid van dat geloof.
- Wetenscappelijk kennis(knowledge) moet verklaard worden sociale factoren, niet door de waarheid van
de theorie zelf.
- Wetenschap= product van de maatschappij(Society) , niet puur logica en feiten.
The practice-turn in the philosophy of science (roughly starting with Kuhn)
before, philosophy of science mainly looked at theories, rules, and logic. The practice return starting with Kuhn
changed this focus.
Now the focus is on what scientists actually do in real life.
That means:
- how scientists work in labs
- how they write and publish papers
- how they work together
- how knowledge is produced in practice
science is seen as a social activity(people working together, a historical activity( science
changes over time) and not just a set of abstract theories and methods.
Today
A rich motley of streams of research (metaphysical questions, integrated history and
philosophy of science, science and technology studies, sociology of scientific
knowledge,…) Tegenwoordig is er niet 1 manier om wetenschap te bestuderen. De
wetenschapsfilosofie bestaat uit veel verschillende benaderingen, die elk een ander
aspect van wetenschap onderzoeken.
Met “anything goes” bedoelt Feyerabend niet dat wetenschap onzin is, maar: er is geen vaste
regel die altijd gevolgd wordt in wetenschap Grote wetenschappelijke doorbraken gebeurden vaak
juist door regels te breken Daarom: geen 1 juiste methode → wat werkt, mag gebruikt worden.
,Les 2
Science…
Helps us to explain and understand the world
Science allows us to build technology; phones, plains, ...
Is worthy of philosophical attention
Is a special kind of knowledge; hard and reliable (trustworthy, difficult to deny)
o It’s harder to disagree with science than religion, political views, ...
o Lots of consensus (large-scale agreement about scientific facts)
➢ This is a partial answer to why scientific knowledge is special
Obvious question: what makes scientific knowledge so special?
Knowledge as justified true belief (JTB account of knowledge)
Someone KNOWS something if they…
- Belief that something is the case “I believe that there are students in my class”
= geloven
- Their belief is true “it really is the case that there are students in my class” = waarheid
- They are justified in holding their belief “I can see the students” = goede
rechtvaardiging hebben voor dat geloof
JTB is the classical account of knowledge of western philosophy
Problems (e.g. Gettier cases):
o Our focus: justification. (e.g. a sheep and a white dog on a hill) Soms lijkt
iemand gerechtvaardigd te zijn, maar toch geen echte kennis te hebben
Scientific justifications are special
Empirical testing (= interaction with the word)
Scientfic knowledge is special, because it is based on testing in a real world.
1. aristoteles( oude manier van denken):
- he taught that people could get knowledge by thinking logical.
- according to him you could just do armchair thinking where you just sit in a chair and reason(=denken)
- you do not need experiments or Measurements
- they call this prescientific Way of thinking
- problem: logical thinking can only be false or not true if you don’t test the world.
2. Francis Bacon( nieuwe manier van denken):
- he said intuition is not enough
- real knowledge comes from:
observing
doing experiments
testing in the real world = empirical testing
- he wrote Novum Organum to Contradicting (= Tegen te spreken) Aristotle
- according to him je need to test nature, not only Imagine what she is like.
- Modern science follow’s Bacon
Idea: scientific facts are ‘battle-hardened’ beliefs
- Scientific facts are strong, beceause they survived a lot of testing and Criticism.
1. Tested with the real world
- Scientific ideas are tested with experiments and observations.
- Only the ideas who remain valid with Empirical results are the ones who remain in existence.
2. It is obligated to be Open-minded
- In science you need to dare( durven) giving your opninion.
- If evidence shows that you are wrong, you need to accept that.
- This is different from Political or religious opinions, Where people often stick to their beliefs.
3. Science is a social activity
, - A scientist writes an article.
- Other scientists read it critically
- Than they decide of it is good enough to publish it.
- So ideas are controlled by the community
Disagreements about scientific “facts”
e.g. ongoing: climate change, vaccines; the Fixed(vaste) majority believes that climates change is
happening due to humans, but others disagree; they believe this is just another phase of
climate because it has always been changing.
Largely settled: smoking, heliocentrism; now we know that smoking is unhealthy, but it
used to be a huge debate
o These are things that we cannot disagree on
= wetenschap groeit door discussie, maar sommige feiten worden uiteindelijk onbetwistbaar
omdat het bewijs overweldigend is.
Claims to scientificness: what theories can we call scientific?
Criteria for Scientfic theorie:
1. falsifiability
- The theory can be proven wrong if evidence contradicts(tegenspreekt) it.
2. Testability
- It can be tested through experiments or oberservations
3. Predictability
- It makes predictions that can be checked in real life.
4. Empirical Evidence
- It is based on measurable data and real-world observations.
5. Reproducibility
- Other scientists can repeat the tests and get the same results.
6. Consistency
- It does not contradict itself or well-established scientific facts.
7. Open to Revision
- It can change if new evidence appears.
8. Peer Review
- Other scientists evaluate the research before it is accepted.
a) creationism
- a christian belief about how the universe was created
- it is not testable by science, because is relies on faith and cannot be proven or disproven.
b) evolution theory
- scientific because it can be tested and proven wrong(falsifiable)
- it makes predictions that be checked with evidence
- that is why it is considered scientific and why it is taught in schools.
c) astrology
- often looks like a science, but it is not scientific
- it cannot be reliably tested or proven.
The Demarcation Problem( grensprobleem tussen wetenschap en niet wetenschap)
What distinguishes science from pseudo-science?
Do atoms exist?
→ alternatively: is there such a thing as a human mind? Do numbers exist? Are there
biological races? Is water H2O? -> metafysische vragen over wat er werkelijk bestaat
A ‘normal’ response: “Yes, of course"
Philosopher's questions: "Ok, but why? What’s the reason this exists?"
A ‘normal’ response: "Because science says so"
Philosopher's questions: “Which science?"
A ‘normal’ response: “Our best scientific theory”
Philosopher's questions: "What makes a scientific theory better than another? And
are we sure that there is a best one?"
A ‘normal’ response: “Just use the scientific method”
Philosopher's questions: "What is that? Is there even a scientific method?”
Ancient Greeks’ understanding of an atom: smallest possible unit of matter; eternal,
unchangeable, indestructible, indivisible, uncuttable Dit was een puur filosofisch idee
zonder experimenten
Thomson:
- Proposed a plum pudding model of the atom (1904)
- A solid sphere of positive charge within the middle electrons, sprinkled
in like plums into pudding.
We don’t think of this model when we think about atoms.
Eerste poging om elektronen te integreren in een atoommodel
Rutherford:
- Model of the atom (1911)
- Positively charged nucleus orbited by electrons with empty space in between
- Has superseded the Thomson model because of experiments: it was proven
to be better Gebaseerd op experimenten, daarom beter dan Thomson
We think of this model when we think about atoms.
Do atoms exist? as an example of the core metaphysical and epistemological
questions of the philosophy of science
Metaphysics: what entities exist? What there is, in what sense of "existing",… and
what is their nature?
Epistemology: what is knowledge? Deals with knowledge in general: how do we
obtain, transmit, store, and compare knowledge?
Metaphysics and epistemology are deeply intertwined → to know what's out
there, you need to know it exists before asking how → Which one is more fundamental? They are for sure the
baseline ofphilosophy; core disciplines.
Metafysica Epistemologie
onderzoekt wat bestaat en wat de aard van
onderzoekt wat kennis is en hoe we kennis
die dingen is (wat is er, en in welke zin
verkrijgen en beoordelen.
bestaat het?
= samen vormen ze de kern van de filosofie.
Overview of the philosophy of science of the past 100 years
Layman's verificationism (1900 - today)
Scientific theories are always verified; you can verify theories (smoking causes cancer,
climate change) → problem: how to verify something? We only observe so much, there’s
much more we can’t observe/verify. Theorieën lijken bevestigd te worden, maar nooit
volledig te bewijzen
Popper's falsificationism (1930s)
Rather than saying we can verify whether scientific theories are true, we need to falsificate
them, that’s how we know something is scientific, what is real science and what is not? Is
creationism a proper science? Een theorie is wetenschappelijk als ze weerlegbaar(to refute) is, je kunt
tegenvoorbeelden geven. Als een theorie niet te weerleggen is dan is ze niet wetenschappelijk.
,Kuhn's historicism (1960s)
What's actually happening in science → problem: he doesn't answer the question of what
science is, only interested in giving historical prospect Richt zich op hoe wetenschap
historisch verandert en niet wat wetenschap is.
Lakatos's rational reconstructions (later 1960s)
It’s important to give an answer on what makes a scientific theory better than another
scientific theory Combineert Popper en Kuhn; theorieën geëvalueerd binnen
onderzoeksprogramma’s
- Theorien achteraf eenvoudig en logisch voorstellen, ook al waren ze in werkelijkheid ingewikkeld en
moeilijk te ontwikkelen(develop)
Wrm? Wetenschap kunnen beoordelen en vergelijken en zien welke theorie rationeel beter
was.
Feyerabend's methodological anarchism (1970s) “anything goes”**
Seems to be giving up on rationality (this was hated by people) Stelt dat er geen vaste of
universele wetenschappelijke methode bestaat. Dit werd door velen gezien als afstand
nemen van rationaliteit en daarom sterk bekritiseerd.
Bloor's sociological reductionism (1970s)
We need to have sociological accounts on how people believe what as they do, regardless
of if their beliefs are true or not Het gaat om waarom mensen iets geloven, niet om de
waarheid van dat geloof.
- Wetenscappelijk kennis(knowledge) moet verklaard worden sociale factoren, niet door de waarheid van
de theorie zelf.
- Wetenschap= product van de maatschappij(Society) , niet puur logica en feiten.
The practice-turn in the philosophy of science (roughly starting with Kuhn)
before, philosophy of science mainly looked at theories, rules, and logic. The practice return starting with Kuhn
changed this focus.
Now the focus is on what scientists actually do in real life.
That means:
- how scientists work in labs
- how they write and publish papers
- how they work together
- how knowledge is produced in practice
science is seen as a social activity(people working together, a historical activity( science
changes over time) and not just a set of abstract theories and methods.
Today
A rich motley of streams of research (metaphysical questions, integrated history and
philosophy of science, science and technology studies, sociology of scientific
knowledge,…) Tegenwoordig is er niet 1 manier om wetenschap te bestuderen. De
wetenschapsfilosofie bestaat uit veel verschillende benaderingen, die elk een ander
aspect van wetenschap onderzoeken.
Met “anything goes” bedoelt Feyerabend niet dat wetenschap onzin is, maar: er is geen vaste
regel die altijd gevolgd wordt in wetenschap Grote wetenschappelijke doorbraken gebeurden vaak
juist door regels te breken Daarom: geen 1 juiste methode → wat werkt, mag gebruikt worden.
,Les 2
Science…
Helps us to explain and understand the world
Science allows us to build technology; phones, plains, ...
Is worthy of philosophical attention
Is a special kind of knowledge; hard and reliable (trustworthy, difficult to deny)
o It’s harder to disagree with science than religion, political views, ...
o Lots of consensus (large-scale agreement about scientific facts)
➢ This is a partial answer to why scientific knowledge is special
Obvious question: what makes scientific knowledge so special?
Knowledge as justified true belief (JTB account of knowledge)
Someone KNOWS something if they…
- Belief that something is the case “I believe that there are students in my class”
= geloven
- Their belief is true “it really is the case that there are students in my class” = waarheid
- They are justified in holding their belief “I can see the students” = goede
rechtvaardiging hebben voor dat geloof
JTB is the classical account of knowledge of western philosophy
Problems (e.g. Gettier cases):
o Our focus: justification. (e.g. a sheep and a white dog on a hill) Soms lijkt
iemand gerechtvaardigd te zijn, maar toch geen echte kennis te hebben
Scientific justifications are special
Empirical testing (= interaction with the word)
Scientfic knowledge is special, because it is based on testing in a real world.
1. aristoteles( oude manier van denken):
- he taught that people could get knowledge by thinking logical.
- according to him you could just do armchair thinking where you just sit in a chair and reason(=denken)
- you do not need experiments or Measurements
- they call this prescientific Way of thinking
- problem: logical thinking can only be false or not true if you don’t test the world.
2. Francis Bacon( nieuwe manier van denken):
- he said intuition is not enough
- real knowledge comes from:
observing
doing experiments
testing in the real world = empirical testing
- he wrote Novum Organum to Contradicting (= Tegen te spreken) Aristotle
- according to him je need to test nature, not only Imagine what she is like.
- Modern science follow’s Bacon
Idea: scientific facts are ‘battle-hardened’ beliefs
- Scientific facts are strong, beceause they survived a lot of testing and Criticism.
1. Tested with the real world
- Scientific ideas are tested with experiments and observations.
- Only the ideas who remain valid with Empirical results are the ones who remain in existence.
2. It is obligated to be Open-minded
- In science you need to dare( durven) giving your opninion.
- If evidence shows that you are wrong, you need to accept that.
- This is different from Political or religious opinions, Where people often stick to their beliefs.
3. Science is a social activity
, - A scientist writes an article.
- Other scientists read it critically
- Than they decide of it is good enough to publish it.
- So ideas are controlled by the community
Disagreements about scientific “facts”
e.g. ongoing: climate change, vaccines; the Fixed(vaste) majority believes that climates change is
happening due to humans, but others disagree; they believe this is just another phase of
climate because it has always been changing.
Largely settled: smoking, heliocentrism; now we know that smoking is unhealthy, but it
used to be a huge debate
o These are things that we cannot disagree on
= wetenschap groeit door discussie, maar sommige feiten worden uiteindelijk onbetwistbaar
omdat het bewijs overweldigend is.
Claims to scientificness: what theories can we call scientific?
Criteria for Scientfic theorie:
1. falsifiability
- The theory can be proven wrong if evidence contradicts(tegenspreekt) it.
2. Testability
- It can be tested through experiments or oberservations
3. Predictability
- It makes predictions that can be checked in real life.
4. Empirical Evidence
- It is based on measurable data and real-world observations.
5. Reproducibility
- Other scientists can repeat the tests and get the same results.
6. Consistency
- It does not contradict itself or well-established scientific facts.
7. Open to Revision
- It can change if new evidence appears.
8. Peer Review
- Other scientists evaluate the research before it is accepted.
a) creationism
- a christian belief about how the universe was created
- it is not testable by science, because is relies on faith and cannot be proven or disproven.
b) evolution theory
- scientific because it can be tested and proven wrong(falsifiable)
- it makes predictions that be checked with evidence
- that is why it is considered scientific and why it is taught in schools.
c) astrology
- often looks like a science, but it is not scientific
- it cannot be reliably tested or proven.
The Demarcation Problem( grensprobleem tussen wetenschap en niet wetenschap)
What distinguishes science from pseudo-science?
