SUMMARY PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
LECTURE 1
EXPERTS
3 facts
1. Most of our beliefs are based on testimony
2. Many people acquire odd beliefs based on others’ testimony
3. Many of the people with odd beliefs consider themselves experts, and do not trust scientists
Who are experts?
- Experts in a specified domain have a greater quantity of accurate information than most people do
- Laypeople (or novices) have little information in the specified domain
Experts in a given field have…
- More true beliefs (and fewer false beliefs) in that field than most people do
- The capacity to use their knowledge to answer new question in that field
- Knowledge of the state of relevant evidence and of the opinions of other researchers in the field
How do I know who is a genuine expert and who is a charlatan?
- I am not an expert on many matters
- If I am a novice on many matters, then I cannot evaluate putative experts’ trustworthiness by using
my own opinion
- After all, I have no opinion or my opinion is too uncertain
The novice-experts problem how should novices choose one putative expert as more credible or
trustworthy than another?
Possible strategies to address the novice-experts problem
1. Arguments presented
o Information from putative experts is widespread and easily available
o How can a novice make an accurate assessment of the putative experts’ arguments and
technical language?
2. Agreement with other experts
o For any domain, there is typically more than one expert, and the great majority of experts
agree on a certain view
o There are many possible reasons why people in a field might agree, and such agreement
doesn’t always signal that they are all correct
3. Appraisal by ‘’meta-experts’’ / look up the credentials
o Meta-expert = people who evaluate experts
o Degrees, prizes, work experience, etc. reflect publicly available certification by other experts
of one’s expertise
, o Novices are not always in a position to assess the significance of one’s credentials
4. Conflicts of interest = a situation where I have multiple interests, and serving one interest could work
against another interest
o Sometimes, conflicts of interest are clear
o In many contexts, novices cannot easily detect more subtle conflicts of interest
5. Past track-record
o In seems easy to check how many times and in what situation a putative expert got it right
o For complex phenomena, it may be beyond the novice’s capacity to check whether a putative
expert got it right
KNOWLEDGE
2 facts
1. Scientists are experts in their own fields
2. Experts have more knowledge in a field than most other people do
An illusion of understanding = people feel they understand complex phenomena with far greater precision,
coherence, and depth than they really do; they are subject to an illusion of explanatory depth
You know something when…
- It’s true
- You believe it
- You are justified to believe it
Knowledge as justified true belief a person knows some proposition p, just in case:
- P is true
- They believe that it is the case
- They are justified to believe p
Justified true belief, fallibility and luck evidence and justification are fallible
- In science and everyday life, evidence can support (to a greater or lesser extent) the trust of our
belies, even though it does not guarantee they are certainly true
- We have devised method to rule out knowledge-destroying luck
- In science and everyday life, we can rely on various methods aimed to avoid there is significant luck in
how our beliefs manage to combine being true with being justified
Defining knowledge
- Truth
- Belief
- Justification
LECTURE 2
SCIENCE AND PSEUDOSCIENCE
3 facts
, 1. Since the 2008 crisis, universities have faced the pressure to identify ‘’essential scientific’’ fields and
cut the rest
2. Unlike philosophy, economics is generally identified as an ‘’essential scientific’’ field
3. Like philosophy, economics cannot point to concrete objects or to big empirical successes of its
theories and models
What’s the point of saying something is ‘’science’’?
- Science is our most reliable source of knowledge in many situations
- To say some practices is ‘’scientific’’ is to say that that practice deserves our trust
- Healthcare providers, insurers, government authorities and patients need guidance on how to identify
medical science
- Economic policies must be grounded in sound scientific results in order to predict, and prevent
economic bubbles, unemployment, bad financial decisions…
- Teachers and school administrators need to present as scientific only those subjects that are actually
scientific
How do I identify science?
- Non-scientific practices do not aim at generating knowledge in the same ways science does, and their
practitioners do not say they are doing science
- Pseudo-scientific practices are not scientific, but their proponents try to create the false impression
they generate genuine, trustworthy knowledge
Checklist for evaluating whether an idea or project qualifies as scientific
- Aims to provide natural explanations of natural phenomena (naturalism)
- Puts forward ideas that can be tested with empirical evidence (empirical investigation, falsifiability)
- Updates ideas based on available evidence (evidentialism)
- Would abandon any idea that was thoroughly refuted (openness to falsification)
- Employs mathematical tools appropriately when they are useful (mathematical techniques)
- Involves the broader scientific community (social and institutional structure)
REPLICABILITY AND RECIPES FOR SCIENCE
Science is a practice:
- Socially and institutionally organized
- Aimed at producing knowledge
- About natural phenomena
(Ir)reproducibility
- Reproducible (aka replicable) studies
o Can be performed again
o Produce the same or sufficiently similar results as the original study
Why replicates a study?
- Limits the role of luck and error
o False positives type I error
o False negatives type II error
LECTURE 1
EXPERTS
3 facts
1. Most of our beliefs are based on testimony
2. Many people acquire odd beliefs based on others’ testimony
3. Many of the people with odd beliefs consider themselves experts, and do not trust scientists
Who are experts?
- Experts in a specified domain have a greater quantity of accurate information than most people do
- Laypeople (or novices) have little information in the specified domain
Experts in a given field have…
- More true beliefs (and fewer false beliefs) in that field than most people do
- The capacity to use their knowledge to answer new question in that field
- Knowledge of the state of relevant evidence and of the opinions of other researchers in the field
How do I know who is a genuine expert and who is a charlatan?
- I am not an expert on many matters
- If I am a novice on many matters, then I cannot evaluate putative experts’ trustworthiness by using
my own opinion
- After all, I have no opinion or my opinion is too uncertain
The novice-experts problem how should novices choose one putative expert as more credible or
trustworthy than another?
Possible strategies to address the novice-experts problem
1. Arguments presented
o Information from putative experts is widespread and easily available
o How can a novice make an accurate assessment of the putative experts’ arguments and
technical language?
2. Agreement with other experts
o For any domain, there is typically more than one expert, and the great majority of experts
agree on a certain view
o There are many possible reasons why people in a field might agree, and such agreement
doesn’t always signal that they are all correct
3. Appraisal by ‘’meta-experts’’ / look up the credentials
o Meta-expert = people who evaluate experts
o Degrees, prizes, work experience, etc. reflect publicly available certification by other experts
of one’s expertise
, o Novices are not always in a position to assess the significance of one’s credentials
4. Conflicts of interest = a situation where I have multiple interests, and serving one interest could work
against another interest
o Sometimes, conflicts of interest are clear
o In many contexts, novices cannot easily detect more subtle conflicts of interest
5. Past track-record
o In seems easy to check how many times and in what situation a putative expert got it right
o For complex phenomena, it may be beyond the novice’s capacity to check whether a putative
expert got it right
KNOWLEDGE
2 facts
1. Scientists are experts in their own fields
2. Experts have more knowledge in a field than most other people do
An illusion of understanding = people feel they understand complex phenomena with far greater precision,
coherence, and depth than they really do; they are subject to an illusion of explanatory depth
You know something when…
- It’s true
- You believe it
- You are justified to believe it
Knowledge as justified true belief a person knows some proposition p, just in case:
- P is true
- They believe that it is the case
- They are justified to believe p
Justified true belief, fallibility and luck evidence and justification are fallible
- In science and everyday life, evidence can support (to a greater or lesser extent) the trust of our
belies, even though it does not guarantee they are certainly true
- We have devised method to rule out knowledge-destroying luck
- In science and everyday life, we can rely on various methods aimed to avoid there is significant luck in
how our beliefs manage to combine being true with being justified
Defining knowledge
- Truth
- Belief
- Justification
LECTURE 2
SCIENCE AND PSEUDOSCIENCE
3 facts
, 1. Since the 2008 crisis, universities have faced the pressure to identify ‘’essential scientific’’ fields and
cut the rest
2. Unlike philosophy, economics is generally identified as an ‘’essential scientific’’ field
3. Like philosophy, economics cannot point to concrete objects or to big empirical successes of its
theories and models
What’s the point of saying something is ‘’science’’?
- Science is our most reliable source of knowledge in many situations
- To say some practices is ‘’scientific’’ is to say that that practice deserves our trust
- Healthcare providers, insurers, government authorities and patients need guidance on how to identify
medical science
- Economic policies must be grounded in sound scientific results in order to predict, and prevent
economic bubbles, unemployment, bad financial decisions…
- Teachers and school administrators need to present as scientific only those subjects that are actually
scientific
How do I identify science?
- Non-scientific practices do not aim at generating knowledge in the same ways science does, and their
practitioners do not say they are doing science
- Pseudo-scientific practices are not scientific, but their proponents try to create the false impression
they generate genuine, trustworthy knowledge
Checklist for evaluating whether an idea or project qualifies as scientific
- Aims to provide natural explanations of natural phenomena (naturalism)
- Puts forward ideas that can be tested with empirical evidence (empirical investigation, falsifiability)
- Updates ideas based on available evidence (evidentialism)
- Would abandon any idea that was thoroughly refuted (openness to falsification)
- Employs mathematical tools appropriately when they are useful (mathematical techniques)
- Involves the broader scientific community (social and institutional structure)
REPLICABILITY AND RECIPES FOR SCIENCE
Science is a practice:
- Socially and institutionally organized
- Aimed at producing knowledge
- About natural phenomena
(Ir)reproducibility
- Reproducible (aka replicable) studies
o Can be performed again
o Produce the same or sufficiently similar results as the original study
Why replicates a study?
- Limits the role of luck and error
o False positives type I error
o False negatives type II error
