PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Chapter 1: DO ATOMS EXIST?
‘Is there such a thing as the human mind? Do numbers exist? Are there biological races?
Is water H2O?’
A ‘normal response Philosopher’s questions
‘Yes’ Ok, but why?
Because science says so Which science?
Which science, what they think of atoms?
- Ancient Greek: understanding of “atom” (ἄτομος): smallest possible unit of
matter; eternal, unchangeable, indestructible, indivisible, uncuttable
Today we don’t think about atoms like this: we split atoms in some fancy way
- Plum pudding model of the atom (Thomson, 1904): solid sphere of positive
charge with electrons embedded (like plums in a pudding, or chocolate in
chocolate chip cookies)
Today we don’t think about atoms like that: now we think of a nucleus, with atoms and
other things
- Rutherford model of the atom (1911): positively charged nucleus orbited by
electrons with empty space in between
So, when we asked do atoms exist? We are thinking about the Rutherford model. But
scientists also told other theories. So, what do we think of an atom when we ask if they
exist
Normal response Philosopher’s question
Our best scientific theory What makes one scientific theory better
than another? And are we sure that there
Just another scientific method is ‘a best one’? -> how do we determine
that?
1
, What is the scientific method? Is there
even a scientific method? Do physics and
biology have the same method?
= this is an example of the core metaphysical and epistemological questions of the
philosophy of science.
METHAPHYSICS: deals with what there is, what kind of entities (concrete object, like a
laptop or states like Belgium) are there, and do they exist? And what is their nature, of
the things that do exist? (ex. is the Thomson model the right model)
Like atoms, are they really out there or is it just that science gives us a really
helpful narrative, some sort of fiction that tells us atoms exist
EPISTEMOLOGY: works with knowledge in general. What is knowledge? How to obtain,
transmit (ex. Teacher know something, how does he transmit it?), store, and compare (for
example with two theories about atoms) knowledge
• Metaphysics and epistemology are deeply intertwined -> they fight, what is more
fundamental.
Metafysics Epistemology
First we got to establish what is out there. To know what’s there, you need to know
First, we need to know what is out there. how to know what’s there.
Because if that thing is not there, Know how to require knowledge
then we can’t really talk about
requiring knowledge about it
Are the baseline of philosophy
This course: focus on the epistemological side of the philosophy of science (but
metaphysics is never far way
LAYOUT OF THE COURSES:
• Layman’s verificationism (1900-today)
= idea that scientific theories are verified, that you can prove things (like atoms or
corona). There is always this problem (problem of induction), that you can’t observe or
verify everything. Other problem: historic problem = why do we abandon scientific
theories if we already verified them, if something better comes along
• Popper’s falsificationism (1930s)
= Popper is the start of our historic problem. We don’t know thet falsification is true, but it
isn’t proven wrong so then it’s a scientific theory. A theory doesn’t exist anymore, when
it’s been proven otherwise, then it’s FALSIFIED
• Kuhn’s historicism (1960s)
= none of these theories of ‘what is a scientific theory’ aren’t what scientists do. He gives
us an account of how science actually behaves. But he doesn’t give us an answer about
what is science and what is not. He just says what scientist do.
• Lakatos’s rational reconstructions (later 1960s)
= you need to have historicism but he is convined that the iimacasion problem is
important. Like which scientific theory is better than the other.
• Feyerabend’s methodological anarchism (1970s)
2
,= no matter what you produce (the philosophers) it will fail some historical episode. No
matter what kind of theory you give for what’s science or not, it will fail.
• Bloor’s sociological reductionism (1970s)
The practice-turn in the philosophy of science (roughly starting with Kuhn)
HOOFDSTUK 1: science is great (normative)
Helps us to explain and understand the world (the facts), perhaps even the social world.
Gives us knowledge. It is hard knowledge
It is harder to disagree with science than with religion (it is trustworthy, difficult to
deny)
Consensus (large-scale agreement about scientific facts)
This is a partial answer to why scientific knowledge is special
We can use this knowledge to build all sorts of technologies (computer, software, internet,
…). Not only can we understand the world, but we can manipulate it.
- Mathematics is parts of science
For example. I see a tree, now I know there is a tree, but do I really see a tree. I might be
mistaken or I’m on drugs. Science is much more reliable than ordinary observation
Obvious question: what makes scientific knowledge so special?
1.1. Knowledge as Justified True Belief (JTB account of knowledge)
Someone knows something if they:
- When someone beliefs that something is the case (e.g. “I believe that there are
students in my
class”)
- Their belief is true (e.g., it really is the case that there are students in my class”) -
> it can be true, but it is going to look like you guessed it, so it needs to be
justified
- They are justified in holding their belief (e.g. “I can see the students”)
JTB is the classical account of knowledge of western philosophy -> it has seen many
criticisms
For example. Gettier cases = imagine a person standing close to a hill and they see a
sheep (belief). Visual gives a form of justification. The animal that they see is a white dog.
But further away there is an actual sheep. So, the belief is true because there really is a
sheep on that hill, and it is justified. They are justified in believing something, so we must
see that this person knows something. But it is false
Knowledge needs to be true, it’s a belief that holds true belief (e.g. I think it’s raining in
Berlin, and it is à that isn’t true believe because I just guessed it (it is not justified))
We will be focusing on justification = explaining why philosophy of science is so special
There are special and particularly convincing justifications of science
Scientific justifications are special
What is the scientific method?
3
, Empirical testing= scientists test their theories and based on the results, that hardens
our beliefs (it justifies them with evidence) = testing is a form of justification, but it
wasn’t always like this
- Aristotelian model: innate intuition can grant knowledge about the world
through ‘armchair’ reflection – no need for empirical testing (Aristotle) -> it was
the way of doing (portal)science
= the world works in a way where certain false always move upwards (fire and air always
move up and water and earth always move down)
-> we found out by basically sitting in our ‘armchair’, we were born with the ability to
reflect on the world (intuition), just by reflecting on the world we see that fire moves
upward -> that way we can get a feeling of the word and understand the world = we get
true knowledge
Armchair reflections= it is bad (just thinking of stuff that we already know) -> usually
meant as a negative connotation/ derogative term
- Francis Bacon’s (1561-1626) Novum Organum (1620)
= Book from Aristotle was named Organum so this was a new version where bacon
challenges this idea of armchair reflection -> he does it better, he provides a new way of
getting knowledge about the world and does not only criticize
= Idea: scientific facts are ‘battle-hardened’ beliefs -> he introduces empirical testing
• Testing against (objective) empirical results= we can call it the scientific method
• Open-minded approach= we might have beliefs, but scientists know that here
hypothesis can be wrong (for example. You think the apple will not fall, but it falls you can
admit it)
• Social enterprise= there are other scientists that also read the publications of their
colleagues and can judge whether the testing was done right (social checks) -> this
makes it difficult to lie and manipulate research
It was not directly accepted, but now we no longer belief that Aristotle model
Is that not too rosy a picture?
Disagreements about scientific “facts”
Ongoing: climate change, vaccines -> today we don’t question climate change,
but a new question comes, what do we do, what causes it? (social debate, whether
climate change is manmade or not) The same with vaccines (Are they causing
Autism?)
Largely settled: smoking (first people wouldn’t believe that smoking wasn’t bad
for you), heliocentrism (people would question if the sun were in the middle of the
solar system, the earth is moving around it)
There are some facts that ‘there is so much consensus’
Claims of scientificness= what theories can we call scientific, and why do we care so
much about it?
Creationism= conflicts scientific knowledge today (not a scientific theory, but
sometimes it is taught at school as scientific theory)
Astrology (the classical example of a non-scientific theory)
4
Chapter 1: DO ATOMS EXIST?
‘Is there such a thing as the human mind? Do numbers exist? Are there biological races?
Is water H2O?’
A ‘normal response Philosopher’s questions
‘Yes’ Ok, but why?
Because science says so Which science?
Which science, what they think of atoms?
- Ancient Greek: understanding of “atom” (ἄτομος): smallest possible unit of
matter; eternal, unchangeable, indestructible, indivisible, uncuttable
Today we don’t think about atoms like this: we split atoms in some fancy way
- Plum pudding model of the atom (Thomson, 1904): solid sphere of positive
charge with electrons embedded (like plums in a pudding, or chocolate in
chocolate chip cookies)
Today we don’t think about atoms like that: now we think of a nucleus, with atoms and
other things
- Rutherford model of the atom (1911): positively charged nucleus orbited by
electrons with empty space in between
So, when we asked do atoms exist? We are thinking about the Rutherford model. But
scientists also told other theories. So, what do we think of an atom when we ask if they
exist
Normal response Philosopher’s question
Our best scientific theory What makes one scientific theory better
than another? And are we sure that there
Just another scientific method is ‘a best one’? -> how do we determine
that?
1
, What is the scientific method? Is there
even a scientific method? Do physics and
biology have the same method?
= this is an example of the core metaphysical and epistemological questions of the
philosophy of science.
METHAPHYSICS: deals with what there is, what kind of entities (concrete object, like a
laptop or states like Belgium) are there, and do they exist? And what is their nature, of
the things that do exist? (ex. is the Thomson model the right model)
Like atoms, are they really out there or is it just that science gives us a really
helpful narrative, some sort of fiction that tells us atoms exist
EPISTEMOLOGY: works with knowledge in general. What is knowledge? How to obtain,
transmit (ex. Teacher know something, how does he transmit it?), store, and compare (for
example with two theories about atoms) knowledge
• Metaphysics and epistemology are deeply intertwined -> they fight, what is more
fundamental.
Metafysics Epistemology
First we got to establish what is out there. To know what’s there, you need to know
First, we need to know what is out there. how to know what’s there.
Because if that thing is not there, Know how to require knowledge
then we can’t really talk about
requiring knowledge about it
Are the baseline of philosophy
This course: focus on the epistemological side of the philosophy of science (but
metaphysics is never far way
LAYOUT OF THE COURSES:
• Layman’s verificationism (1900-today)
= idea that scientific theories are verified, that you can prove things (like atoms or
corona). There is always this problem (problem of induction), that you can’t observe or
verify everything. Other problem: historic problem = why do we abandon scientific
theories if we already verified them, if something better comes along
• Popper’s falsificationism (1930s)
= Popper is the start of our historic problem. We don’t know thet falsification is true, but it
isn’t proven wrong so then it’s a scientific theory. A theory doesn’t exist anymore, when
it’s been proven otherwise, then it’s FALSIFIED
• Kuhn’s historicism (1960s)
= none of these theories of ‘what is a scientific theory’ aren’t what scientists do. He gives
us an account of how science actually behaves. But he doesn’t give us an answer about
what is science and what is not. He just says what scientist do.
• Lakatos’s rational reconstructions (later 1960s)
= you need to have historicism but he is convined that the iimacasion problem is
important. Like which scientific theory is better than the other.
• Feyerabend’s methodological anarchism (1970s)
2
,= no matter what you produce (the philosophers) it will fail some historical episode. No
matter what kind of theory you give for what’s science or not, it will fail.
• Bloor’s sociological reductionism (1970s)
The practice-turn in the philosophy of science (roughly starting with Kuhn)
HOOFDSTUK 1: science is great (normative)
Helps us to explain and understand the world (the facts), perhaps even the social world.
Gives us knowledge. It is hard knowledge
It is harder to disagree with science than with religion (it is trustworthy, difficult to
deny)
Consensus (large-scale agreement about scientific facts)
This is a partial answer to why scientific knowledge is special
We can use this knowledge to build all sorts of technologies (computer, software, internet,
…). Not only can we understand the world, but we can manipulate it.
- Mathematics is parts of science
For example. I see a tree, now I know there is a tree, but do I really see a tree. I might be
mistaken or I’m on drugs. Science is much more reliable than ordinary observation
Obvious question: what makes scientific knowledge so special?
1.1. Knowledge as Justified True Belief (JTB account of knowledge)
Someone knows something if they:
- When someone beliefs that something is the case (e.g. “I believe that there are
students in my
class”)
- Their belief is true (e.g., it really is the case that there are students in my class”) -
> it can be true, but it is going to look like you guessed it, so it needs to be
justified
- They are justified in holding their belief (e.g. “I can see the students”)
JTB is the classical account of knowledge of western philosophy -> it has seen many
criticisms
For example. Gettier cases = imagine a person standing close to a hill and they see a
sheep (belief). Visual gives a form of justification. The animal that they see is a white dog.
But further away there is an actual sheep. So, the belief is true because there really is a
sheep on that hill, and it is justified. They are justified in believing something, so we must
see that this person knows something. But it is false
Knowledge needs to be true, it’s a belief that holds true belief (e.g. I think it’s raining in
Berlin, and it is à that isn’t true believe because I just guessed it (it is not justified))
We will be focusing on justification = explaining why philosophy of science is so special
There are special and particularly convincing justifications of science
Scientific justifications are special
What is the scientific method?
3
, Empirical testing= scientists test their theories and based on the results, that hardens
our beliefs (it justifies them with evidence) = testing is a form of justification, but it
wasn’t always like this
- Aristotelian model: innate intuition can grant knowledge about the world
through ‘armchair’ reflection – no need for empirical testing (Aristotle) -> it was
the way of doing (portal)science
= the world works in a way where certain false always move upwards (fire and air always
move up and water and earth always move down)
-> we found out by basically sitting in our ‘armchair’, we were born with the ability to
reflect on the world (intuition), just by reflecting on the world we see that fire moves
upward -> that way we can get a feeling of the word and understand the world = we get
true knowledge
Armchair reflections= it is bad (just thinking of stuff that we already know) -> usually
meant as a negative connotation/ derogative term
- Francis Bacon’s (1561-1626) Novum Organum (1620)
= Book from Aristotle was named Organum so this was a new version where bacon
challenges this idea of armchair reflection -> he does it better, he provides a new way of
getting knowledge about the world and does not only criticize
= Idea: scientific facts are ‘battle-hardened’ beliefs -> he introduces empirical testing
• Testing against (objective) empirical results= we can call it the scientific method
• Open-minded approach= we might have beliefs, but scientists know that here
hypothesis can be wrong (for example. You think the apple will not fall, but it falls you can
admit it)
• Social enterprise= there are other scientists that also read the publications of their
colleagues and can judge whether the testing was done right (social checks) -> this
makes it difficult to lie and manipulate research
It was not directly accepted, but now we no longer belief that Aristotle model
Is that not too rosy a picture?
Disagreements about scientific “facts”
Ongoing: climate change, vaccines -> today we don’t question climate change,
but a new question comes, what do we do, what causes it? (social debate, whether
climate change is manmade or not) The same with vaccines (Are they causing
Autism?)
Largely settled: smoking (first people wouldn’t believe that smoking wasn’t bad
for you), heliocentrism (people would question if the sun were in the middle of the
solar system, the earth is moving around it)
There are some facts that ‘there is so much consensus’
Claims of scientificness= what theories can we call scientific, and why do we care so
much about it?
Creationism= conflicts scientific knowledge today (not a scientific theory, but
sometimes it is taught at school as scientific theory)
Astrology (the classical example of a non-scientific theory)
4
