Philosophy of the Humanities 1 Luctures
Lecture 1
In the early 20th century there was a crisis in how the sciences peruse, test and
verify knowledge vs how the humanities does that and wether it s scientific. This
crisis is captured around the Vienna school and the logical empiricism (3 Groups
of Thinkers on the sciences within the humanities)
the problem of demarcation
the difference between scientific knowledge and pseudoscientific knowledge
A. It is the task to figure out what the philosophy of science and the philosophy of
humanities is. and how the developed in relation to each other
B. There are two related key issues in philosophy of science and philosophy of
humanities
Demarcation problem
relation theory and reality
video on book:
There is a strong history in the humanities of trying to regulate our
interpretive practices
in the humanities we are also by definition critical (of truth claims)
we are critical of certain of truth claims that are made of behalf of certain
kinds of reason, human reasoning is thus essentially a self reflective
critically orientation towards the limitations of reason it self
A tripartite division (p.16, p.24)
philosophy of natural sciences
truth (things that are always true)
adequate description of properties
rising primacy of mathematical reason
philosophy of humanities
interpretation (of things that can be shared and questioned)
not just "what is x" but "what and how does x mean?"
,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: description of scientific practise and products
eg. How do scientists connect theory to reality (in what labs, with what
theories?)
Normative: normative assessment of scientific practices and products
eg. How should scientists connect theory to reality (logically,
methodologically, ethically, politically)
eg. what distinguishes science from pseudoscience and opinion? (how
can we differentiate a scientific practice that is predicated on
pseudoscience and opinion)
Instrumental approach
critical reflection on sciences/humanities and scientific/humanities research
critical science consumer
critical thinking
Philosophical insights/frameworks as instruments for reflection
even the language accounts for an instrument
The demarcation problem
A series of debates that try to distinguish episteme (universal, timeless
necessary truths) vs doxa ( pseudoscientific opinions/ perspective-
dependent beliefs)
What distinguishes good science from pseudoscientific opinions?
Post truth area
fake news
climates change denial
flat earthers
Philosophy of knowledge in antiquity: what are the sources of knowledge?
Plat's rationalism (truth that are not available to sense perception)
Aristotle's empiricism
,Plato
reasoning capacities
fundamental in gaining true knowledge
perception is in perceptual flux
perception be the foundation of knowledge
Humans that take sensory experience as the ultimate source of knowledge
are like prisoners in the cave
Aristotle; there is only one world and we can learn about it through empirical
inquiry
3 different answers to the demarcation problem
logical empiricism
verifiability: claim should be testable using sensory experience
critical rationalism
falsifiability: claim should have the potential to be refuted by some
possible observation
Kuhns philosophy of science
normal science governed by a paradigm
3. Logical Empiricism endorsed a verification criterion of meaning (p. 77).
Explain what this criterion entails.
Logical Empiricism: a historical context
At the turn of the 20th natural sciences flourished
Bad metaphysics and pseudoscience accused as responsible for the rise of
ethnonationalist and anti-semitic politics
with the motivation for a better and just world (a bunch of socialists)
science as the right model for philosophical
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
, Logical Empiricism
Verifiability theory of meaning
knowing the meaning of a sentence is knowing how to verify it by means
of observation
verifiability = testability
strong empiricist principle: experience is the only source of meaning,
anything beyond that is meaningless
scientific claims are verifiable and hence have meaning
Most traditional philosophy lacks meaning
have have t get rid of meaningless sentence
Tony is angry is not meaningful because we can not verify it
demarcation > answer is verification in a sentence that contains no
meaningless statements.
Done through induction : lots and lts of things you can experience (lots
of white swans)
Poppers attack
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.
you can not verify universal laws . It is impossible due to the problem of
induction
It si 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
there is no thing as a universal law
Falsification
5. Popper endorsed falsifiability as a solution to the problem of demarcation (p.
91). Explain what this criterion entails.
Lecture 1
In the early 20th century there was a crisis in how the sciences peruse, test and
verify knowledge vs how the humanities does that and wether it s scientific. This
crisis is captured around the Vienna school and the logical empiricism (3 Groups
of Thinkers on the sciences within the humanities)
the problem of demarcation
the difference between scientific knowledge and pseudoscientific knowledge
A. It is the task to figure out what the philosophy of science and the philosophy of
humanities is. and how the developed in relation to each other
B. There are two related key issues in philosophy of science and philosophy of
humanities
Demarcation problem
relation theory and reality
video on book:
There is a strong history in the humanities of trying to regulate our
interpretive practices
in the humanities we are also by definition critical (of truth claims)
we are critical of certain of truth claims that are made of behalf of certain
kinds of reason, human reasoning is thus essentially a self reflective
critically orientation towards the limitations of reason it self
A tripartite division (p.16, p.24)
philosophy of natural sciences
truth (things that are always true)
adequate description of properties
rising primacy of mathematical reason
philosophy of humanities
interpretation (of things that can be shared and questioned)
not just "what is x" but "what and how does x mean?"
,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: description of scientific practise and products
eg. How do scientists connect theory to reality (in what labs, with what
theories?)
Normative: normative assessment of scientific practices and products
eg. How should scientists connect theory to reality (logically,
methodologically, ethically, politically)
eg. what distinguishes science from pseudoscience and opinion? (how
can we differentiate a scientific practice that is predicated on
pseudoscience and opinion)
Instrumental approach
critical reflection on sciences/humanities and scientific/humanities research
critical science consumer
critical thinking
Philosophical insights/frameworks as instruments for reflection
even the language accounts for an instrument
The demarcation problem
A series of debates that try to distinguish episteme (universal, timeless
necessary truths) vs doxa ( pseudoscientific opinions/ perspective-
dependent beliefs)
What distinguishes good science from pseudoscientific opinions?
Post truth area
fake news
climates change denial
flat earthers
Philosophy of knowledge in antiquity: what are the sources of knowledge?
Plat's rationalism (truth that are not available to sense perception)
Aristotle's empiricism
,Plato
reasoning capacities
fundamental in gaining true knowledge
perception is in perceptual flux
perception be the foundation of knowledge
Humans that take sensory experience as the ultimate source of knowledge
are like prisoners in the cave
Aristotle; there is only one world and we can learn about it through empirical
inquiry
3 different answers to the demarcation problem
logical empiricism
verifiability: claim should be testable using sensory experience
critical rationalism
falsifiability: claim should have the potential to be refuted by some
possible observation
Kuhns philosophy of science
normal science governed by a paradigm
3. Logical Empiricism endorsed a verification criterion of meaning (p. 77).
Explain what this criterion entails.
Logical Empiricism: a historical context
At the turn of the 20th natural sciences flourished
Bad metaphysics and pseudoscience accused as responsible for the rise of
ethnonationalist and anti-semitic politics
with the motivation for a better and just world (a bunch of socialists)
science as the right model for philosophical
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
, Logical Empiricism
Verifiability theory of meaning
knowing the meaning of a sentence is knowing how to verify it by means
of observation
verifiability = testability
strong empiricist principle: experience is the only source of meaning,
anything beyond that is meaningless
scientific claims are verifiable and hence have meaning
Most traditional philosophy lacks meaning
have have t get rid of meaningless sentence
Tony is angry is not meaningful because we can not verify it
demarcation > answer is verification in a sentence that contains no
meaningless statements.
Done through induction : lots and lts of things you can experience (lots
of white swans)
Poppers attack
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.
you can not verify universal laws . It is impossible due to the problem of
induction
It si 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
there is no thing as a universal law
Falsification
5. Popper endorsed falsifiability as a solution to the problem of demarcation (p.
91). Explain what this criterion entails.
