June 2: Philosophy of Science 1
|
|
|
To do for next class - 1) Read pp. 350-562 and pp. 377-386 2) What other parts of philosophy does the relation between theory and observation relate to? Why? 3) What shortcomings are there of the scientific method? |
To do for next class - 1) Read pp. 362-387. 2) Can you think of any scientific revolutions that have happened in the last 30 years? Why are they revolutions? 3) Can you think of examples where science has seemed like politics? |
Introduction
Philosophy of science is the branch of philosophy centered on the critical examination of the methods and results of science. Typically, 'science' includes physics, biology, cognitive science, social science, etc. Some aspects of philosophy of science are much like epistemology. For example, justification of knowledge claims are often thought to follow the same principles as the justification of scientific hypotheses, theories or theoretical objects (such as an electron). Philosophy of science also resembles metaphysics in some instances e.g. being concerned with what there is, and the 'reality' of theoretical objects (or unobservables) like quarks. When philosophy of science is specifically focused on one aspect of science such as biology, for example, the concern is usually with concepts specific to that science (e.g. species, individual) and the methods and types of explanation provided by that science (e.g. evolutionary explanations). What would philosophy of cognitive science be? How would that differ from philosophy of mind?
More general questions that have concerned philosophers of science include: What is a theory? (A set of hypotheses positing relations, entities and properties usually with predictive powers (though not in the case of plate tectonics) and which purports to provide an explanation) What are the determining characteristics of science? (method, objectivity, sometimes its not clear... historical accident?, focus on the natural world "natural philosophy", non-normativity) How do the people doing science relate to the product of science (i.e. the theories)? (next day). What's the difference between good theories and bad theories? (Sailors still travel assuming a Ptolemaic system. Ptolemaic predictions were as good or better than those of Copernicans for a long time after the introduction of Copernicus' system).
Many philosopher of science are also interested in the history of science, but normally for more than just an academic curiosity. They are trying to learn from the past to determine the means of change, and the strengths and weaknesses of the enterprise. However, it is not always so easy to go from what we have seen to what we will see - as we will see tomorrow.
Science today
Is Wolff right about the four most important modern thinkers? (Darwin, Marx, Einstein and Freud) How scientific is our world? Compared to what? Has science been 'set above' other disciplines? If yes, is that bad? Can you think of a daily activity of yours that isn't influenced by science? Are there any other disciplines that have that much influence?
Technology vs. Science
What is technology? (It is the computers, ovens, cars, sewing machines, radios, and TVs that surround us every day.) What is the difference between technology and science? (Technology is the product of science) What's the relationship between technology and science? If there was no science, could there be no technology (vice versa?) ? (No, but it would probably not progress as fast. Science is an efficient means of producing technology. The theories of science are about the natural world technology is a manipulation of the natural world according to those theories. However, technology can help science, they are mutually beneficial).
Is science responsible for the technology it produces? Are scientists responsible for the technology they produce? Can science be good or bad in itself? Can technology be good or bad in itself?
Scientific method
The scientific method was first explicitly written down by Sir Francis Bacon, just a few years before Descartes published his method of doubt. The debate that is thought by many to have spurred his exposition is that of the nature of the solar system. The geocentric ptolemaic system had been challenged in 1534 by Kopernik's (Polish, latinized to Copernicus) heliocentric system. Afraid of the church, he did not allow his hypothesis to be published until he was on his death bed. After him, Tycho Brahe, Kepler and Galileo tried to support this view. There were a number of problems with it, but it was a simple theory (Okham's Razor). For instance, no one observed stellar parallax until 1838, and we could not feel ourselves hurtling through space. It was in this context of uncertainty that debates about the valid methods of obtaining knowledge about our world began. Questions of method were now as important as questions of fact (because fact was so influenced by method).
Bacon's method was unique in its emphasis on observation - plain observation, like a history or simple description. He thought scientists should systematically collect lots (and lots and lots) of data and then arrange them in various ways until the obvious law underlying their production could be inferred (by comparing to the Tables of Presence and Absence and the Tables of Increase and Decrease). Of course, in Bacon's day, there was no question of the role of instruments - they had none (except primitive telescopes which were 'disbelieved' by some to be giving valid data) - that is one of the biggest changes since his day. Bacon thought that the true way of gaining knowledge was to gather data and make your way in an 'unbroken ascent' to the general principles. He noted others made a few observations and then jumped to conclusions, but thought this was unadvisable - though common. This is rationalism (good for math, but not science) vs. empiricism (good for science).
Wolff claims p.385 that for Bacon the purpose of scientific investigation is to 'change nature'. Bacon says: "The true and lawful goal of the sciences is none other than this: that human life be endowed with new discoveries and powers." Is this the same claim?
Theories and observations
Newton performed one of the greatest scientific syntheses of all time. He brought together the laws of terrestrial and celestial motion into 3 'laws'. Do you know what they were? (F=ma; a body at rest stays there; for every action there is an equal opposite reaction) Wolff claims that Newton's achievements were a boon to the rationalist side of the debate. Why? Does Bacon claim there is no room for theory? Did Newton jump to conclusions on the basis of no evidence? Wolff claims that this is where experiments come in. They are guided by theory and are not a historical observation ala Bacon. Is this true? (yes and no. is historical observation not guided by a theory? etc.) Does Wolff's claim come down to the fact that people can't make unbiased observations? If true, does that through science into question... just like the validity of white biased philosophy?
On the more descriptive side, it is difficult to come up with a non 'ism'-ed view of the relation between evidence and hypothesis. The two most basic are:
Foundationalism - The view that there are fundamental, undeniable facts (foundations) on which or scientific knowledge rests (e.g. C=constant). Often these facts are observational. The theory depends on these facts for support. If the theory and fact conflict, the theory is falsified (Popper). Good theories fit the facts.
Coherentism - Theories are true because they cohere with a large body of scientific knowledge (i.e. support, don't mutually contradict other theories). There is no undeniable, unrevisable aspect of science. Good theories are consistent with everything already known (underdetermination thesis), but also interesting (predictive?). This position can have a stronger weight to observation, but observations can still be revised like theories.
Which do you think is closer to Wolff's view? Note also that there are a number of views of the status of unobservables in scientific theory here are three:
Realism - Mature theories refer to real features of the world. Also, the history of falsification isn't good reason to disbelieve current theory.
Anti-realism - If our concept of an independent world is subjective then it doesn't make sense to talk of such a world. There's nothing our theoretic concepts refer to.
Instrumentalism - The view that parts of a theory are merely "linguistic instruments" which are useful for explanation of observations. Unobservable terms don't refer to anything in actuality.
Eliminiativism - View that all 'higher' level scientific entities can be reduced completely to physics. In fact, the higher level things don't exist, only physical objects do and these are bound to be strictly non-mappable to the posited higher level entities.
What sorts of problems can you see for each of these views? Strengths? What would each say about electrons? Apples? Note that these are claims about language - philosophy of language.
Cold fusion
What is fusion versus fission? Why is cold fusion such a big
deal? (Because of its products - technology. No one knows if it's
possible. Unlimited energy source. The only fusion we know is
really hot - sun, H-bomb). According to recent information, cold
fusion was bad science. It is more likely to be a chemical reaction
than fusion - they have never detected gamma rays (which is lucky
for them). It is still interesting, but Pons and Fleishman seem
to be doing bad science. They changed the scales on their graphs
when it was pointed out their results made no sense. They did
not provide detailed specifications of how they performed the
experiments. Most boards were unable to confirm their results.
Pons declared that he had made an apparatus of the size of a thermos
which would satisfy the needs of a normal family and could make
tea. Pons also said that the boiler was giving off 10 to 15 times
the energy put in - None of this has been confirmed. The comportment
of Fleischmann and Pons who provided different and inconsistent
data at different times. However, they do have a lot of funding
now. More tomorrow.
Interested in more? Judge's decision in cold fusion court case. Current thinking on cold fusion. More info on cold fusion.
1) Read pp. 362-387. 2) Can you think of any scientific revolutions that have happened in the last 30 years? Why are they revolutions? 3) Can you think of examples where science has seemed like politics?