Philosophy of science
Do atoms exist?
A normal respons is “Yes, ofcourse” -> but doesn’t tell us why (philosopher’s
questions)
Why? “Because science says so” -> which Science?
Which science? “our best scientific theory” -> What makes a theory better than
another?
“Just use the scientific method” -> What is the scientific method?
The question is an example of the core metaphysical and epistemological
questions of the philosophy of science
Metaphysics: what entities exists and what is their nature?
Epistemology: What is knowledge? How to obtain, transmit and compare
knowledge?
They are deeply intertwined
Focus: epistemology
Overview of the philosophy of science of the past 100 years
Layman’s verification (1900-today)
Scientific theories that you can somehow prove something
Popper’s falsification (1930s)
Propose theories and make them a subject for falsification
Find out if the theory is correct or not
Negative connotation
What is the difference between science and non-science?
Philosophy is the study of problems, cause each answer gives several
problems
Kuhn’s historicism (1960’s)
Problem: he doesn’t give us an answer on what actual science is like?
Lakato’s rational reconstructions (later 1960s)
Gives us an answer on what makes a theory better than another and on
what the best theory is
Feyerabend’s methodological anarchism (1970s)
1
, Philosophy of science
Bloor’s sociological reductionism (1970s)
The practice-turn in the philosophy of science
What sciences do? (publication process)
Zooming in on details
Rich motley of streams of research (today)
Methaphysical questions
Integrated history
Philosophy of science
…
What makes science great?
• Helps us to explain and understand the world
We know many biological and chemical facts (gravity..), how our
brain works
It’s a practically hard knowledge, cause it’s harder to disagree to
science than to religion
It’s unlike opinions, it’s just facts about how the world works
• Technology: Without science non of this would happen (computers,
airplanes…)
• Special kind of knowledge
Hard and reliable sort of knowledge -> trustworthy and difficult to
deny
Consensus (large-scale agreement about scientific facts)
• Worthy of philosophical attention (philosophy of science [and
mathematics])
Obvious question: what makes scientific knowledge so special?
JTB (justified true belief) account of knowledge
Plato
Someone know something if they
1. Belief that something is the case (I believe that it’s raining in NY)
2. What you belief must be true (It really is raining in NY)
3. They are justified in holding their belief, you need good reasons to belief it
(I can see that it’s raining In NY)
If every step is taken, you have the classical account of knowledge of
Western Philosophy
Lots of problems with JTB
2
, Philosophy of science
philosophers discovered that you can have all three parts without really
knowing
Focus here: justification
How do we justify our beliefs?
What is a good reason to belief something is true?
‘Scientific justifications are special’
They are based on empirical testing, not only on emotions
1. Aristotle model: you can gain knowledge through intellectual
reflection, using your reason or intuition to understand how the
world works
You don’t necessarily need to conduct experiments, simply
thinking is enough
Example: Aristotle thought that bigger objects fall faster
than smaller objects, just because it seemed logical
2. Francis Bacon: one of the first to do the testing and observation
This is the beginning of the scientific method: observation,
experiments, results, controlling
3. Scientific facts as ‘battle-hardened beliefs’
Beliefs that have withstood many tests
Testing against empirical results, instead of only based on
reasoning or intuition
Open-minded approach: Scientists must be willing to listen to criticism and
accept that their hypothesis can be wrong, new information can undermine
a theory and that’s just how science moves forward
Social enterprise: science is not individual, it’s a collective activity
Peer review: experts check articles of scientists -> if the results are
trustworthy, the work can be published
Quality control: all knowledge that withstand criticism of others, is
accepted as ‘scientific’
Too rosy a picture?
A lot of disagreements about scientific facts
Bv. Ongoing debat about climate change, vaccines…
Largely settled: heliocentrism, smoking
Claims to scientificness: What theories can be called scientific?
Creationism: the doctrine that God created the earth
o It conflicts with the scientific knowledge as we have it today
Astrology: classical example of non-scientific theory
3
, Philosophy of science
The demarcation problem
What distinguishes science from pseudo-science?
Why does demarcation matter?
‘Man's respect for knowledge is one of his most peculiar characteristics.
Knowledge in Latin is scientia, and science came to be the name of the most
respectable kind of knowledge. But what distinguishes knowledge from
superstition, ideology or pseudoscience? The Catholic Church excommunicated
Copernicans, the Communist Party persecuted Mendelians on the ground that
their doctrines were pseudoscientific. The demarcation between science and
pseudoscience is not merely a problem of armchair philosophy: it is of vital social
and political relevance.’
Betekenis:
Mensen hebben altijd veel respect voor kennis gehad en vinden het belangrijk om
dingen begrijpen en om te weten wat waar is. Het woord ‘science’ komt van het
Latijnse scientia, wat gewoon ‘kennis’ betekent. Maar in de moderne tijd is
‘science’ de naam geworden voor de meest betrouwbare vorm van kennis. Maar
wat maakt het verschil tussen echte kennis/wetenschap en misleidende
kennis/pseudo-wetenschap? Toen Copernicus degene was die als eerste zei dat
de aarde rond de zon draait (heliocentrisme), vond de Kerk dat ketters en zag het
hem als een valse wetenschapper. In de Sovjet-Unie werden wetenschappers die
Mendeliaanse genetica aanhingen, vervolgd. De communistische partij vond niet
dat die theorie paste bij hun ideologie, dus noemden ze het
pseudowetenschappelijk. Het demarcatie probleem is geen theoretisch probleem,
maar heeft echte gevolgen in de wereld: die grens tussen wetenschap is sociaal
en politiek belangrijk.
De grens tussen wetenschap is sociaal en politiek belangrijk, omdat:
- Het bepaalt wie we geloven (wetenschappers/zeveraars)
- Het bepaalt welke kennis we in school aanleren
- Het bepaalt welke beslissingen we nemen in bijvoorbeeld
gezondheidszorg, klimaatbeleid…
If we know what science is, we can resist state efforts to interfere with science
Towards a tentative answer
Idea: the scientific method distinguishes science from pseudo-science
Real sciences uses the scientific method and pseudo-sciences doesn’t
use that
What is the scientific method?
Hypothesis testing via empirical observation
4
Do atoms exist?
A normal respons is “Yes, ofcourse” -> but doesn’t tell us why (philosopher’s
questions)
Why? “Because science says so” -> which Science?
Which science? “our best scientific theory” -> What makes a theory better than
another?
“Just use the scientific method” -> What is the scientific method?
The question is an example of the core metaphysical and epistemological
questions of the philosophy of science
Metaphysics: what entities exists and what is their nature?
Epistemology: What is knowledge? How to obtain, transmit and compare
knowledge?
They are deeply intertwined
Focus: epistemology
Overview of the philosophy of science of the past 100 years
Layman’s verification (1900-today)
Scientific theories that you can somehow prove something
Popper’s falsification (1930s)
Propose theories and make them a subject for falsification
Find out if the theory is correct or not
Negative connotation
What is the difference between science and non-science?
Philosophy is the study of problems, cause each answer gives several
problems
Kuhn’s historicism (1960’s)
Problem: he doesn’t give us an answer on what actual science is like?
Lakato’s rational reconstructions (later 1960s)
Gives us an answer on what makes a theory better than another and on
what the best theory is
Feyerabend’s methodological anarchism (1970s)
1
, Philosophy of science
Bloor’s sociological reductionism (1970s)
The practice-turn in the philosophy of science
What sciences do? (publication process)
Zooming in on details
Rich motley of streams of research (today)
Methaphysical questions
Integrated history
Philosophy of science
…
What makes science great?
• Helps us to explain and understand the world
We know many biological and chemical facts (gravity..), how our
brain works
It’s a practically hard knowledge, cause it’s harder to disagree to
science than to religion
It’s unlike opinions, it’s just facts about how the world works
• Technology: Without science non of this would happen (computers,
airplanes…)
• Special kind of knowledge
Hard and reliable sort of knowledge -> trustworthy and difficult to
deny
Consensus (large-scale agreement about scientific facts)
• Worthy of philosophical attention (philosophy of science [and
mathematics])
Obvious question: what makes scientific knowledge so special?
JTB (justified true belief) account of knowledge
Plato
Someone know something if they
1. Belief that something is the case (I believe that it’s raining in NY)
2. What you belief must be true (It really is raining in NY)
3. They are justified in holding their belief, you need good reasons to belief it
(I can see that it’s raining In NY)
If every step is taken, you have the classical account of knowledge of
Western Philosophy
Lots of problems with JTB
2
, Philosophy of science
philosophers discovered that you can have all three parts without really
knowing
Focus here: justification
How do we justify our beliefs?
What is a good reason to belief something is true?
‘Scientific justifications are special’
They are based on empirical testing, not only on emotions
1. Aristotle model: you can gain knowledge through intellectual
reflection, using your reason or intuition to understand how the
world works
You don’t necessarily need to conduct experiments, simply
thinking is enough
Example: Aristotle thought that bigger objects fall faster
than smaller objects, just because it seemed logical
2. Francis Bacon: one of the first to do the testing and observation
This is the beginning of the scientific method: observation,
experiments, results, controlling
3. Scientific facts as ‘battle-hardened beliefs’
Beliefs that have withstood many tests
Testing against empirical results, instead of only based on
reasoning or intuition
Open-minded approach: Scientists must be willing to listen to criticism and
accept that their hypothesis can be wrong, new information can undermine
a theory and that’s just how science moves forward
Social enterprise: science is not individual, it’s a collective activity
Peer review: experts check articles of scientists -> if the results are
trustworthy, the work can be published
Quality control: all knowledge that withstand criticism of others, is
accepted as ‘scientific’
Too rosy a picture?
A lot of disagreements about scientific facts
Bv. Ongoing debat about climate change, vaccines…
Largely settled: heliocentrism, smoking
Claims to scientificness: What theories can be called scientific?
Creationism: the doctrine that God created the earth
o It conflicts with the scientific knowledge as we have it today
Astrology: classical example of non-scientific theory
3
, Philosophy of science
The demarcation problem
What distinguishes science from pseudo-science?
Why does demarcation matter?
‘Man's respect for knowledge is one of his most peculiar characteristics.
Knowledge in Latin is scientia, and science came to be the name of the most
respectable kind of knowledge. But what distinguishes knowledge from
superstition, ideology or pseudoscience? The Catholic Church excommunicated
Copernicans, the Communist Party persecuted Mendelians on the ground that
their doctrines were pseudoscientific. The demarcation between science and
pseudoscience is not merely a problem of armchair philosophy: it is of vital social
and political relevance.’
Betekenis:
Mensen hebben altijd veel respect voor kennis gehad en vinden het belangrijk om
dingen begrijpen en om te weten wat waar is. Het woord ‘science’ komt van het
Latijnse scientia, wat gewoon ‘kennis’ betekent. Maar in de moderne tijd is
‘science’ de naam geworden voor de meest betrouwbare vorm van kennis. Maar
wat maakt het verschil tussen echte kennis/wetenschap en misleidende
kennis/pseudo-wetenschap? Toen Copernicus degene was die als eerste zei dat
de aarde rond de zon draait (heliocentrisme), vond de Kerk dat ketters en zag het
hem als een valse wetenschapper. In de Sovjet-Unie werden wetenschappers die
Mendeliaanse genetica aanhingen, vervolgd. De communistische partij vond niet
dat die theorie paste bij hun ideologie, dus noemden ze het
pseudowetenschappelijk. Het demarcatie probleem is geen theoretisch probleem,
maar heeft echte gevolgen in de wereld: die grens tussen wetenschap is sociaal
en politiek belangrijk.
De grens tussen wetenschap is sociaal en politiek belangrijk, omdat:
- Het bepaalt wie we geloven (wetenschappers/zeveraars)
- Het bepaalt welke kennis we in school aanleren
- Het bepaalt welke beslissingen we nemen in bijvoorbeeld
gezondheidszorg, klimaatbeleid…
If we know what science is, we can resist state efforts to interfere with science
Towards a tentative answer
Idea: the scientific method distinguishes science from pseudo-science
Real sciences uses the scientific method and pseudo-sciences doesn’t
use that
What is the scientific method?
Hypothesis testing via empirical observation
4
