Philosophy of Science Exam
Science starts with observations. Essential ingredients for science: The world has to be
understandable for us humans. We try to make sense of the world by using systematic
observations and abstract theories.
Aristotle
Scientists want to understand the nature of things. Aristotle thinks science experiments
should take place without human interference, just observations of nature. The nature =
what it does. Typical objects of scientific research are often living things that exist by nature
(like animals, plants, earth, water, etc). He divides reality into natural objects and things that
exist from other causes. When something exists from another cause, it’s an artefact. Some
of his predecessors thought that a thing’s nature is the material stuff which constitutes it. But
this appeal depends on a misuse of the analogy between art and nature. Art imitates nature.
With all living things there’s a process by which it comes to be. This natural process of
generation is one in which the organism comes to realize its (natural) form, which is an
internal process. The form is normal for the thing we’re observing: (ex: cow) 1. Appearance
(colour), 2. Parts (1 head, 4 legs), 3. Matter (bone, flesh), 4. Behaviour, 5. Goal / telos (to
reproduce). So, the form is the normal, but there are still deviations, making them defect (ex:
a cow with 2 legs).
The growth of an organism is a process directed toward an end (telos), growing from
immature to mature. This is growing from its potential (= when you can become something
but you haven’t yet become it) to its actual (= the thing you can become). The growth
happens because of a power. The end is the (fully actualized) form.
In the universe, there’s a center point. Different substances (ousia) have different natural
places (where it moves to on its own nature, so when nothing interferes). A substance lives
by itself (like a human person). 5 substances: earth, water, air, fire, and *stars, moons, etc*.
Aristotle’s idea of a ‘good life’ consists of doing science and politics. But he still thinks there
are many good ways to live a good life, even though he emphasizes certain things.
17th-century till now
In the 17th-century, Aristotle generally wasn’t at the forefront anymore. The essential
ingredients for science are the same. But they think about how to do that in a different way.
The best observations are done in certain circumstances, which you have to create yourself,
so you can see exactly what you want to see as scientist. This explains Galileo Galilei’s
theory that ‘everything falls with the same speed’ (a law = tells you exactly what will happen
every time). Aristotelians disagreed with this, because Galileo interferes with nature for his
experiment. But Galileo prefers to observe things that are as identical as possible, so not
things as cows.
Knowledge
Knowledge is not yet understanding. We need more facts than just one simple piece of
information to create something of meaning and interest in history (connections, causes,
etc).
When making an analysis, there are necessary conditions and sufficient conditions (ex:
getting your BA – necessary: passing this course, sufficient: passing all courses).
1
, Knowledge = when do you know when a certain thing is true.
JTB analysis of knowledge = in order to know something, 3 things have to be the case:
you have to believe it, it has to be true, and you have to have good reasons (justification).
The trilemma of justification: non-justified basis (“I trust my memory”), circles (why, why
why?), and infinite regress. All statements require trust in science.
Fact = something you’re trying to describe. It is in the world. Language is made by us and
expresses the fact.
Consensus
Standard view of science: a scientific claim is quite believable, so scientists have a kind of
authority. Why? We think of science of being in a state of free consensus. Consensus =
people agree on something, but this can also be controlled by others (ex: people in North
Korea saying they like their leader). Free consensus = people are allowed to make up their
own mind and still agree on something. How come in science there will always be some kind
of consensus (unlike politics or religion): in science, we base our ideas on observation and
measurements, which are objective and repeatable, and based on valid logical reasoning.
Theory follows from observation. Scientists are critical and only interested in truth.
Scientific method = scientists have a special way of developing and testing theories.
Scientific methodology = the attempt to describe the scientific method. This is a normative
discipline, one which tells us how things ought to happen. It’s also descriptive: it has to give
an accurate account of how proper scientific research is done in practice. So, together,
scientific method emerges as an ideal. It tells us how science should be done.
Logical approach = normative -> the right ways of reasoning. This approach raises the
question to what extent the proposed logical rules agree with actual scientific practice.
Historical approach = descriptive -> describing scientific practice. The starting point would
be a historical / sociological description of the activities of successful scientists. How do we
know that patterns in the history of science reflect the scientific method?
Context of discovery = philosophers of science have introduced a distinction between this
and the context of justification. This contains everything relevant to the origins and
conception of a scientific theory.
Context of justification = this contains everything relevant to judging, as objectively as
possible, whether or not a theory is believable – regardless of how it was conceived. Most
philosophers of science have agreed that they should only be concerned with this context.
A good theory shouldn’t contradict itself. The opposite of a contradiction (= a statement that
cannot be true) is a tautology (= a statement that cannot be false), but these also aren’t good
in science because they are uninformative.
Empirical content = when a theory does well at telling us how our world is different from
other worlds. It usually has as much detail as possible. 2 basic questions of empiricism:
Which statements can we test directly? (empirical basis) & How do we get from such
statements to statements that can’t be tested directly? (confirmation).
Empirical knowledge = knowledge gained through observations. The opposite of this is
knowledge gained through pure thought (ex: 2 + 28 = 30).
Theory-ladenness of observations = even if we think we’re only noting down things we
see and hear, we still make all kinds of assumptions that aren’t directly part of the
observation itself.
2
Science starts with observations. Essential ingredients for science: The world has to be
understandable for us humans. We try to make sense of the world by using systematic
observations and abstract theories.
Aristotle
Scientists want to understand the nature of things. Aristotle thinks science experiments
should take place without human interference, just observations of nature. The nature =
what it does. Typical objects of scientific research are often living things that exist by nature
(like animals, plants, earth, water, etc). He divides reality into natural objects and things that
exist from other causes. When something exists from another cause, it’s an artefact. Some
of his predecessors thought that a thing’s nature is the material stuff which constitutes it. But
this appeal depends on a misuse of the analogy between art and nature. Art imitates nature.
With all living things there’s a process by which it comes to be. This natural process of
generation is one in which the organism comes to realize its (natural) form, which is an
internal process. The form is normal for the thing we’re observing: (ex: cow) 1. Appearance
(colour), 2. Parts (1 head, 4 legs), 3. Matter (bone, flesh), 4. Behaviour, 5. Goal / telos (to
reproduce). So, the form is the normal, but there are still deviations, making them defect (ex:
a cow with 2 legs).
The growth of an organism is a process directed toward an end (telos), growing from
immature to mature. This is growing from its potential (= when you can become something
but you haven’t yet become it) to its actual (= the thing you can become). The growth
happens because of a power. The end is the (fully actualized) form.
In the universe, there’s a center point. Different substances (ousia) have different natural
places (where it moves to on its own nature, so when nothing interferes). A substance lives
by itself (like a human person). 5 substances: earth, water, air, fire, and *stars, moons, etc*.
Aristotle’s idea of a ‘good life’ consists of doing science and politics. But he still thinks there
are many good ways to live a good life, even though he emphasizes certain things.
17th-century till now
In the 17th-century, Aristotle generally wasn’t at the forefront anymore. The essential
ingredients for science are the same. But they think about how to do that in a different way.
The best observations are done in certain circumstances, which you have to create yourself,
so you can see exactly what you want to see as scientist. This explains Galileo Galilei’s
theory that ‘everything falls with the same speed’ (a law = tells you exactly what will happen
every time). Aristotelians disagreed with this, because Galileo interferes with nature for his
experiment. But Galileo prefers to observe things that are as identical as possible, so not
things as cows.
Knowledge
Knowledge is not yet understanding. We need more facts than just one simple piece of
information to create something of meaning and interest in history (connections, causes,
etc).
When making an analysis, there are necessary conditions and sufficient conditions (ex:
getting your BA – necessary: passing this course, sufficient: passing all courses).
1
, Knowledge = when do you know when a certain thing is true.
JTB analysis of knowledge = in order to know something, 3 things have to be the case:
you have to believe it, it has to be true, and you have to have good reasons (justification).
The trilemma of justification: non-justified basis (“I trust my memory”), circles (why, why
why?), and infinite regress. All statements require trust in science.
Fact = something you’re trying to describe. It is in the world. Language is made by us and
expresses the fact.
Consensus
Standard view of science: a scientific claim is quite believable, so scientists have a kind of
authority. Why? We think of science of being in a state of free consensus. Consensus =
people agree on something, but this can also be controlled by others (ex: people in North
Korea saying they like their leader). Free consensus = people are allowed to make up their
own mind and still agree on something. How come in science there will always be some kind
of consensus (unlike politics or religion): in science, we base our ideas on observation and
measurements, which are objective and repeatable, and based on valid logical reasoning.
Theory follows from observation. Scientists are critical and only interested in truth.
Scientific method = scientists have a special way of developing and testing theories.
Scientific methodology = the attempt to describe the scientific method. This is a normative
discipline, one which tells us how things ought to happen. It’s also descriptive: it has to give
an accurate account of how proper scientific research is done in practice. So, together,
scientific method emerges as an ideal. It tells us how science should be done.
Logical approach = normative -> the right ways of reasoning. This approach raises the
question to what extent the proposed logical rules agree with actual scientific practice.
Historical approach = descriptive -> describing scientific practice. The starting point would
be a historical / sociological description of the activities of successful scientists. How do we
know that patterns in the history of science reflect the scientific method?
Context of discovery = philosophers of science have introduced a distinction between this
and the context of justification. This contains everything relevant to the origins and
conception of a scientific theory.
Context of justification = this contains everything relevant to judging, as objectively as
possible, whether or not a theory is believable – regardless of how it was conceived. Most
philosophers of science have agreed that they should only be concerned with this context.
A good theory shouldn’t contradict itself. The opposite of a contradiction (= a statement that
cannot be true) is a tautology (= a statement that cannot be false), but these also aren’t good
in science because they are uninformative.
Empirical content = when a theory does well at telling us how our world is different from
other worlds. It usually has as much detail as possible. 2 basic questions of empiricism:
Which statements can we test directly? (empirical basis) & How do we get from such
statements to statements that can’t be tested directly? (confirmation).
Empirical knowledge = knowledge gained through observations. The opposite of this is
knowledge gained through pure thought (ex: 2 + 28 = 30).
Theory-ladenness of observations = even if we think we’re only noting down things we
see and hear, we still make all kinds of assumptions that aren’t directly part of the
observation itself.
2
