Chapter 2 - what is science?
Introduction
There are many misconceptions
Science is the quest for knowledge that relies on criticism
First and foremost, science is a method - at its core, a critical method
Sit Karl Popper ([1959] 2003) said that science is not a static set of beliefs to be conserved, and that
science is tentative. Socrates: an acute awareness of our own ignorance is always the firs step
toward knowledge
Science isn't about certainty
It's not about invoking authority to protect out ideas from uncomfortable evidence; it's about asking
tough questions and providing answers that invite criticism. It's about recognizing the limits of our
knowledge without lapsing into irresponsible cynicism
Comparative politics is a subfield of science
What does it mean to study politics scientifically?
The body of knowledge we call scientific is not science itself
Science simply provisionally results in this knowledge
'How do we know what we know?' 'We know what we know because we have subjected it to the
scientific method'
Science is a particular quest for knowledge (different to other quests like reading scripture)
In science, ideas are continually subject to the cold light of logic and evidence
The thing that allows for criticism is the possibility that our claims/theories/hypotheses could be
false
Scientific statements MUST be falsifiable (they must be potentially testable - there must be an
imaginable observation that could refute them - we must be able to conceive of a way to test it)
The Scientific Method - the process by which scientists learn about the world
1: Question
Observe the world and come up with a question or puzzle
E.g. "Why did this occur?"
2: Theory or Model
Come up with a theory or model which explains our observations of the world
(Theory - a set of logically consistent statement
Why do they have to be logically consistent?
Is they're not then we have no way to determine what their empirical predictions will be, so no way
to test them - there is no way to falsify them)
The principle of the uniformity of nature asserts that nature's operating mechanism are unchanging
in the sense that if X causes Y today, then it will also cause Y tomorrow...
Most philosophers of science accept this claim
If the claim doesn't hold for X then we should not consider X a cause
It's important d to accept the claim of uniformity of nature else we need to accept that some things
'just happen'.
Introduction
There are many misconceptions
Science is the quest for knowledge that relies on criticism
First and foremost, science is a method - at its core, a critical method
Sit Karl Popper ([1959] 2003) said that science is not a static set of beliefs to be conserved, and that
science is tentative. Socrates: an acute awareness of our own ignorance is always the firs step
toward knowledge
Science isn't about certainty
It's not about invoking authority to protect out ideas from uncomfortable evidence; it's about asking
tough questions and providing answers that invite criticism. It's about recognizing the limits of our
knowledge without lapsing into irresponsible cynicism
Comparative politics is a subfield of science
What does it mean to study politics scientifically?
The body of knowledge we call scientific is not science itself
Science simply provisionally results in this knowledge
'How do we know what we know?' 'We know what we know because we have subjected it to the
scientific method'
Science is a particular quest for knowledge (different to other quests like reading scripture)
In science, ideas are continually subject to the cold light of logic and evidence
The thing that allows for criticism is the possibility that our claims/theories/hypotheses could be
false
Scientific statements MUST be falsifiable (they must be potentially testable - there must be an
imaginable observation that could refute them - we must be able to conceive of a way to test it)
The Scientific Method - the process by which scientists learn about the world
1: Question
Observe the world and come up with a question or puzzle
E.g. "Why did this occur?"
2: Theory or Model
Come up with a theory or model which explains our observations of the world
(Theory - a set of logically consistent statement
Why do they have to be logically consistent?
Is they're not then we have no way to determine what their empirical predictions will be, so no way
to test them - there is no way to falsify them)
The principle of the uniformity of nature asserts that nature's operating mechanism are unchanging
in the sense that if X causes Y today, then it will also cause Y tomorrow...
Most philosophers of science accept this claim
If the claim doesn't hold for X then we should not consider X a cause
It's important d to accept the claim of uniformity of nature else we need to accept that some things
'just happen'.
