Philosophy of the Humanities 1
Lecture 1:
General insights from philosophy of science
Philosophy of science in the 20th century: major currents
• A. What is philosophy of science and philosophy of humanities
– Tasks of philosophy of science and philosophy of humanities
• B. Two related key issues in philosophy of science and philosophy of humanities
– Demarcation problem -> distinguish between scientific and and non-science. It examines the
lines between science, pseudoscience, and other products of human activity, like art and
literature, and beliefs.
– Relation theory and reality
A tripartite division (p.16, p. 24)
• Philosophy of natural sciences
– truth
• Philosophy of social sciences
• Philosophy of humanities
– interpretation
Humanities: Archaeology, history, classics, linguistics, law, literature, philosophy, religion,
performance arts, visual arts
Social sciences: economy, law, political science, communication studies, psychology, sociology,
education, social work,
Natural sciences: biology, physics, chemistry, physiology , anatomy,
Formal sciences: computer sciences, mathematics, and statistics
Applied sciences: medicine and health, engineering, technology and business
Descriptive and normative philosophy
Before we distinguish between scientific and pseudoscientific we need to understand the
difference between descriptive and normative
Descriptive task would include a reconstruction of a context of discovery-> context of
scientific discovery -> what were the experiments , the results etc.
Normative task focuses on the context of justification-> how do scientist write out and
communicate their findings within a shared language
Vienna circle would say that the descriptive task aims not so interesting, what is more interesting
is how the context of justification works across the sciences
• Chapter 1
• 1. Both philosophy of science and philosophy of humanities have a double task, viz. a descriptive
task and a normative task (pp. 16-18 Leezenberg 2018). Explain these tasks.
Descriptive and normative tasks
• Descriptive: description of scientific practices and products
– e.g. How do scientists connect theory to reality?
• Normative: normative assessment of scientific practices and products
– E.g. How should scientists connect theory to reality?
– E.g. What distinguishes science from pseudoscience and opinion?
,-> only if you can distinguish the descriptive with the normative task you can distinguish the
pseudoscientific and scientific statements
Instrumental approach
• Critical reflection on science/humanities and scientific/humanities research
– Critical science consumers
– Critical thinking
• Philosophical insights/frameworks as instruments for reflection (p. 35).
Demarcation
• Chapter 3
• 2. What is the problem of demarcation (p. 91)? -> exam question
Demarcation: difference between Episteme ( principled system of understanding; (study of
knowledge, how knowledge is made-> makes sense that the preference is on the side of episteme)
and Doxa (a common belief or popular opinion; meaning 'to appear, to seem, to think, to accept’)
Anything that looks like it can not be tested, verified or sophisticated has no room within scientific
discourse
Science vs. pseudoscience
• Episteme vs. doxa (pp. 19-20)
• What distinguishes good science
• from pseudoscience and opinion?
– Post truth area
• fake news
• Climate change denial
• Flat earthers
• Etc….
Episteme vs. doxa
• Episteme: timeless necessary truths (p. 19)
• Doxa: opinion, perspective-dependent beliefs (p. 20); opinion that is reducible to a
particular standpoint either in a culture or religious tradition, short sided environment etc.
-> anything that you can not experience does not have to be true (solipsism: only one’s mind
sure to exist. solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure)
• Philosophy of knowledge in antiquity: what are the sources of knowledge?
– Plato’s Rationalism
– Aristotle’s Empiricism
Seminar-The myth of the cave
• Plato
• We need the category of form
• Reasoning capacities fundamental in gaining true knowledge
– Knowledge about unobservable essences (or Forms) in a supernatural reality
– The myth of the cave illustrates this position
• Vs. Aristotle: essences are empirically accessible.
The myth of the cave
,• Plato: perception is in perpetual flux
• Hence, perception can’t be the foundation of knowledge
• Humans that take sensory experience (domain of Doxa) as the ultimate source of knowledge
are like prisoners in the cave, viz. they mistake appearance for reality (doxa)
– Observations are mere imperfect shadows of real Forms or ideas in a supernatural realm of ideas
or Forms
• True knowledge through use of reasoning capacities
• Aristotle disagrees; there is only one world and we can learn about it through empirical
inquiry
• Inductive form of reasoning: I observed 50 white swans so all swans are white; more general
statement that can be verified of not
• Deductive from of reasoning: start with theory and select a lot of examples to it
• -> two ways to decide if something is true or not, to make a claim
Science vs. pseudo -science
3 different answers:
• Logical Empiricism
– Verifiability: claim should be testable using sensory experience (doxa) (p. 77)
• Critical Rationalism (Popper)
– Falsifiability: claim should have the potential to be refuted by some possible observation (p.
91)-> Make a claim and try to falsify it
• Kuhn’s philosophy of science
– Normal science is governed by a paradigm (a paradigm includes “the practices that define a
scientific discipline at a certain point in time." Paradigms contain all the distinct, established
patterns, theories, common methods and standards that allow us to recognize an experimental result
as belonging to a field or not.) (p. 118).
Verification
• Chapter 3
• 3. Logical Empiricism endorsed a verification criterion of meaning (p. 77). Explain what this
criterion entails. -> exam question
Logical Empiricism: historical context
• At the turn of the 20th century natural sciences flourished (e.g., Einstein’s relativity theory)
• Science as the right model for philosophy
• Main aim Logical empiricism: analysis of the nature, success, and growth of scientific
knowledge
• Logical reconstructions of scientific results (theories, explanations)
– Context of discovery vs. context of justification
• Vienna ‘reflective epicenter’.
• Logical Empiricism-> support of implicitly political ideology, in alliance with socialism-> now
modern world that was rationally organized
Logical Empiricism
• Verifiability theory of meaning -> for logical empiricism it is a theoretical term
• theories you cannot verify are not true claims only claims that can be observed and
analyzed through experience of the thing being claimed-> you need to proof that its true
, – Knowing the meaning of a sentence is knowing how to verify it by means of observation and
experiences
– Verifiability = testability
– Strong empiricist principle: experience is the only source of meaning
–Scientific claims are verifiable and hence have meaning
• Most traditional philosophy lacks meaning!
Verifiable or not?
• “Where do we seek the Nothing?” (p. 76) you cannot seek nothing-> nothing is not a thing->
not verifiable (its metaphysical); not a scientific way of thinking
• “Tony Soprano is angry/gets a red haze before his eyes.”(p. 81) -> person might not actually be
angry; category anger cannot be verified; you need to get deeper into the physical
expression -> blood pressure, sweating, speaking with a loud voice-> you can verify that! and
claim that the Tony Soprano is actually angry
• “I hear a melody in my head.” (p. 81) -> in a scientific way this claim has no meaning
• LE: These statements appear factive and hence verifiable but in fact are not….
• Inductive method
• To be able to experience and directly name the thing upon which the claim is being made
forward to make scene and if you cannot experience it/ the nothing/ the spirit of history than
it doesn’t make sense to make a claim about that concept
Popper’s attack
• Chapter 3
• 4. According to Popper, the verification criterion is useless for distinguishing universal laws
from metaphysical statements (p. 90). Explain Popper’s argumentation for this claim. -> exam
question
Carnap-> the demarcation between pseudoscientific and scientific claims was based on the
inductive verifiability of truth claims -> opposite for Popper
Popper-> the demarcation between pseudoscientific and scientific claims will be accomplished
through a deductive form of reasoning (Fallibility) -> why: the role of the sciences is actually
to think, promote certain kinds of theoretical premises in order to try to falsify them in order
to try and show in as many ways as possible wether or not you can falsify them -> if you can’t
they are good theories
Verifiability and the problem of induction
• How to verify universal laws? You can't ever verify universal law but yet we have to assume
that there are certain kind of universal laws -> Einstein and general relativity-> universal law
of nature ; but you can’t really verify it because you can never have enough examples to say
that this corresponds with sense perception or experiences
• Popper: this is impossible due to the problem of induction
• It is logically impossible to verify every instance covered by a law
– It is in principle always possible that the law will be refuted by future observations
– So confirmation is also no solution
–Hence, verification is no solution to the demarcation problem.
Falsification
• Chapter 3
Lecture 1:
General insights from philosophy of science
Philosophy of science in the 20th century: major currents
• A. What is philosophy of science and philosophy of humanities
– Tasks of philosophy of science and philosophy of humanities
• B. Two related key issues in philosophy of science and philosophy of humanities
– Demarcation problem -> distinguish between scientific and and non-science. It examines the
lines between science, pseudoscience, and other products of human activity, like art and
literature, and beliefs.
– Relation theory and reality
A tripartite division (p.16, p. 24)
• Philosophy of natural sciences
– truth
• Philosophy of social sciences
• Philosophy of humanities
– interpretation
Humanities: Archaeology, history, classics, linguistics, law, literature, philosophy, religion,
performance arts, visual arts
Social sciences: economy, law, political science, communication studies, psychology, sociology,
education, social work,
Natural sciences: biology, physics, chemistry, physiology , anatomy,
Formal sciences: computer sciences, mathematics, and statistics
Applied sciences: medicine and health, engineering, technology and business
Descriptive and normative philosophy
Before we distinguish between scientific and pseudoscientific we need to understand the
difference between descriptive and normative
Descriptive task would include a reconstruction of a context of discovery-> context of
scientific discovery -> what were the experiments , the results etc.
Normative task focuses on the context of justification-> how do scientist write out and
communicate their findings within a shared language
Vienna circle would say that the descriptive task aims not so interesting, what is more interesting
is how the context of justification works across the sciences
• Chapter 1
• 1. Both philosophy of science and philosophy of humanities have a double task, viz. a descriptive
task and a normative task (pp. 16-18 Leezenberg 2018). Explain these tasks.
Descriptive and normative tasks
• Descriptive: description of scientific practices and products
– e.g. How do scientists connect theory to reality?
• Normative: normative assessment of scientific practices and products
– E.g. How should scientists connect theory to reality?
– E.g. What distinguishes science from pseudoscience and opinion?
,-> only if you can distinguish the descriptive with the normative task you can distinguish the
pseudoscientific and scientific statements
Instrumental approach
• Critical reflection on science/humanities and scientific/humanities research
– Critical science consumers
– Critical thinking
• Philosophical insights/frameworks as instruments for reflection (p. 35).
Demarcation
• Chapter 3
• 2. What is the problem of demarcation (p. 91)? -> exam question
Demarcation: difference between Episteme ( principled system of understanding; (study of
knowledge, how knowledge is made-> makes sense that the preference is on the side of episteme)
and Doxa (a common belief or popular opinion; meaning 'to appear, to seem, to think, to accept’)
Anything that looks like it can not be tested, verified or sophisticated has no room within scientific
discourse
Science vs. pseudoscience
• Episteme vs. doxa (pp. 19-20)
• What distinguishes good science
• from pseudoscience and opinion?
– Post truth area
• fake news
• Climate change denial
• Flat earthers
• Etc….
Episteme vs. doxa
• Episteme: timeless necessary truths (p. 19)
• Doxa: opinion, perspective-dependent beliefs (p. 20); opinion that is reducible to a
particular standpoint either in a culture or religious tradition, short sided environment etc.
-> anything that you can not experience does not have to be true (solipsism: only one’s mind
sure to exist. solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure)
• Philosophy of knowledge in antiquity: what are the sources of knowledge?
– Plato’s Rationalism
– Aristotle’s Empiricism
Seminar-The myth of the cave
• Plato
• We need the category of form
• Reasoning capacities fundamental in gaining true knowledge
– Knowledge about unobservable essences (or Forms) in a supernatural reality
– The myth of the cave illustrates this position
• Vs. Aristotle: essences are empirically accessible.
The myth of the cave
,• Plato: perception is in perpetual flux
• Hence, perception can’t be the foundation of knowledge
• Humans that take sensory experience (domain of Doxa) as the ultimate source of knowledge
are like prisoners in the cave, viz. they mistake appearance for reality (doxa)
– Observations are mere imperfect shadows of real Forms or ideas in a supernatural realm of ideas
or Forms
• True knowledge through use of reasoning capacities
• Aristotle disagrees; there is only one world and we can learn about it through empirical
inquiry
• Inductive form of reasoning: I observed 50 white swans so all swans are white; more general
statement that can be verified of not
• Deductive from of reasoning: start with theory and select a lot of examples to it
• -> two ways to decide if something is true or not, to make a claim
Science vs. pseudo -science
3 different answers:
• Logical Empiricism
– Verifiability: claim should be testable using sensory experience (doxa) (p. 77)
• Critical Rationalism (Popper)
– Falsifiability: claim should have the potential to be refuted by some possible observation (p.
91)-> Make a claim and try to falsify it
• Kuhn’s philosophy of science
– Normal science is governed by a paradigm (a paradigm includes “the practices that define a
scientific discipline at a certain point in time." Paradigms contain all the distinct, established
patterns, theories, common methods and standards that allow us to recognize an experimental result
as belonging to a field or not.) (p. 118).
Verification
• Chapter 3
• 3. Logical Empiricism endorsed a verification criterion of meaning (p. 77). Explain what this
criterion entails. -> exam question
Logical Empiricism: historical context
• At the turn of the 20th century natural sciences flourished (e.g., Einstein’s relativity theory)
• Science as the right model for philosophy
• Main aim Logical empiricism: analysis of the nature, success, and growth of scientific
knowledge
• Logical reconstructions of scientific results (theories, explanations)
– Context of discovery vs. context of justification
• Vienna ‘reflective epicenter’.
• Logical Empiricism-> support of implicitly political ideology, in alliance with socialism-> now
modern world that was rationally organized
Logical Empiricism
• Verifiability theory of meaning -> for logical empiricism it is a theoretical term
• theories you cannot verify are not true claims only claims that can be observed and
analyzed through experience of the thing being claimed-> you need to proof that its true
, – Knowing the meaning of a sentence is knowing how to verify it by means of observation and
experiences
– Verifiability = testability
– Strong empiricist principle: experience is the only source of meaning
–Scientific claims are verifiable and hence have meaning
• Most traditional philosophy lacks meaning!
Verifiable or not?
• “Where do we seek the Nothing?” (p. 76) you cannot seek nothing-> nothing is not a thing->
not verifiable (its metaphysical); not a scientific way of thinking
• “Tony Soprano is angry/gets a red haze before his eyes.”(p. 81) -> person might not actually be
angry; category anger cannot be verified; you need to get deeper into the physical
expression -> blood pressure, sweating, speaking with a loud voice-> you can verify that! and
claim that the Tony Soprano is actually angry
• “I hear a melody in my head.” (p. 81) -> in a scientific way this claim has no meaning
• LE: These statements appear factive and hence verifiable but in fact are not….
• Inductive method
• To be able to experience and directly name the thing upon which the claim is being made
forward to make scene and if you cannot experience it/ the nothing/ the spirit of history than
it doesn’t make sense to make a claim about that concept
Popper’s attack
• Chapter 3
• 4. According to Popper, the verification criterion is useless for distinguishing universal laws
from metaphysical statements (p. 90). Explain Popper’s argumentation for this claim. -> exam
question
Carnap-> the demarcation between pseudoscientific and scientific claims was based on the
inductive verifiability of truth claims -> opposite for Popper
Popper-> the demarcation between pseudoscientific and scientific claims will be accomplished
through a deductive form of reasoning (Fallibility) -> why: the role of the sciences is actually
to think, promote certain kinds of theoretical premises in order to try to falsify them in order
to try and show in as many ways as possible wether or not you can falsify them -> if you can’t
they are good theories
Verifiability and the problem of induction
• How to verify universal laws? You can't ever verify universal law but yet we have to assume
that there are certain kind of universal laws -> Einstein and general relativity-> universal law
of nature ; but you can’t really verify it because you can never have enough examples to say
that this corresponds with sense perception or experiences
• Popper: this is impossible due to the problem of induction
• It is logically impossible to verify every instance covered by a law
– It is in principle always possible that the law will be refuted by future observations
– So confirmation is also no solution
–Hence, verification is no solution to the demarcation problem.
Falsification
• Chapter 3
