Idea Transcript
Philosophy of science
Demarcation of science Demarcation can be done in different ways: o Non-science o Pseudo-science o Technology o Between science and studies
Knowledge Science produces knowledge. o What is knowledge? o How do we make a distinction between knowledge and belief? o Plato: ”Knowledge is justified, true belief.” o Two theories of truth. o But what about justification – how do we justify scientific knowledge?
Truth? In order to understand what knowledge is, we need to know what truth is. oCorrespondence theory of truth. o Truth as a relation between statements and states of affairs.
o Coherence theory of truth. o Truth as a relation between statements and systems (language/beliefs).
Knowledge Science produces knowledge. o What is knowledge? o How do we make a distinction between knowledge and belief? o Plato: ”Knowledge is justified, true belief.” o Two theories of truth. o But what about justification – how do we justify scientific knowledge?
Rationalism v. Empiricism o Rationalism: o True knowledge is produced by axiomatic reasoning. o Starting in general principles, and deducting conclusions about the world.
o Empiricism: o True knowledge comes through observation. o Starting in individual observations (many), and drawing general conclusions about the world.
Inductive reasoning Observations should be: o Unbiased. o Made under many different (controlled) circumstances. o Described in a manner that is quantifiable/measurable. o Possible to repeat. o Then we can draw general conclusion of how the world is.
The problem of induction o But, how many observations do we need, in order to draw any conclusions of how things are? o And, how can we trust that our next observation will be in accordance with our previous? o According to some philosophers, we cannot. o There is no sure way of making this conclusion. o Hume’s problem of induction. o Uniformity of nature. o Causality.
A scientific method o Karl Popper tried to find a solution to the problem of induction. o His solution: not use inductive reasoning. o Instead we should test, in order to falsify our best theories. o Hypothetic-deductive reasoning.
Hypothetic-deductive reasoning o Begins with a hypothesis (an statement about the world, which we are not sure of) o Deduces empirical consequences from this hypothesis. o These empirical consequences are compared to observations made. o If the observations contradicts our predictions, the hypothesis is proven to be wrong – falsified. o If the observations are in line with our predictions, the hypothesis is not proven to be true.
A scientific method o Karl Popper tried to find a solution to the problem of induction. o His solution: not use inductive reasoning. o Instead we should test, in order to falsify our best theories. o Hypothetic-deductive reasoning. o This helps us in science, because we do not need to rely on induction. o All we can prove in science is falsehood. o But we can corroborate hypothesis, by testing them. o Truth is the aim, but not achievable.
What counts as an explanation? One usually talks of three different kinds of explanations: o Causal explanations (deductive-nomological). o Motivational explanations. o Functional explanations.
Theories on scientific development o Popperian account of falsification as development. o Science corroborates and falsifies propositions about the world, and by doing so we get theories that are more ”truthlike” – verisimilitude. o Kuhnian idea of paradigm.
Kuhn’s theory of Paradigms A descriptive idea of scientific change, presented in ”Structures of Scientific Revolutions” (1962). o He uses historical examples, to make his point. o The Copernican and the ”Einsteinian” revolutions in physics. oConsists of 4 parts: o Metaphysical assumptions o Symbolic generalisations o Exemplars o Values
Kuhn’s theory of Paradigms o All paradigms goes through certain stages: o Pre-paradigmatic phase o Normal science o Crisis o Scientific revolution (paradigm shift)
o Change, rather than development. o Questions the rationality of science. o The problem of incommensurability of different paradigms.
Realism in philosophy of science According to a realist’s view of science there is a reality to discover. But, what does that mean? o There is a mind-independent world. o Statements in science are ”assertive”. o (This includes statements about ”theoretical entities”.) o Statements in science can be true and false (nothing else). o Science aspire for saying true things about the mind-independent world. o Science can say true things, but it is hard (impossible?) to tell true statements from false.
Anti-realism So, what are the alternatives? o Social constructivism o Relativism o Idealism o Instrumentalism o Empiricism o Scepticism
An objective science? o The traditional view of science is an activity that should be untainted by our individual or collective values. o Science should be ”objective”. o This seems to be problematic, for many reasons. We can be (and are) biased in many ways. o Bacon’s ”Idols of the mind”. o Idol of the tribe o Idol of the cave o Idol of the marketplace o Idol of the theatre
An objective science? Max Weber’s idea of value free science. I.
Pre-science – values influence our choices of problems.
II.
During science – values influence how we conduct our research.
III.
After science – values influence how we use the results of our research
Rober Merton’s CUDOS: o Communism o Universalism o Disinterestedness o Organized Scepticism
Science and technology
Is there a difference? o In some respects technology and science seems to be very closely connected. o According to e.g. Mario Bunge technology is ”applied science”. o Has technology become science? Has science become technology? o A lot of scientific research is technological in nature, but there seems to be some differences still.
Goals o The goal of scientific research is to produce Truths. o It does this by questioning and criticizing old world-views, and replacing them with new (hopefully better ones). o The goals of technological research seems to be to produce techniques to solve practical problems. o Technology will make use of science, scientific theories and methods, but the aims and goals are not the same.
Technology and technique o ”Technology can be seen as the activity directed towards producing useful techniques for solving practical problems.” o In order for us to understand this characterisation we need to make a distinction between ”technology” and ”technique”. o Technology is the research activity. o A technique is the result of that activity . o It is: ”a type of method - sometimes involving tools - that is intended to be of help in solving a practical problem.”
Technology and technique o In order for it to be a technique, it has to be: o Repeatable o Transferable (sold or taught) o ”machine-like” – even though it does not have to include machines.
o But also, techniques always presupposes a specific inteded purpose (i.e. solving a practical problem). o So we end up with this characterisation: ”technology is an activity that develops repeatable and transferable methods (techniques) with specified effects that are useful for solving practical problems”
Technology and practice o A third concept we need to demarcate. o Practice is not technology, nor science. o It is the activity of making use of techniques and scientific knowledge, to solve practical problems. o The origins of these practical problems is in the needs of lay-people outside the field of science and technology. o E.g. medical practice
Technology and truth o In contrast to the critical scientific method, the method of both technology and practice is pragmatic. o The aim is to solve practical problems, and being able to do just that is the measure of success. o This means that a technique or a practice might be useful, even if it based on false theories. o So, the success of a technique can’t be used as a proof for the theory it is based on. o Nordin calls this “an epistemic fallacy of technology”.
Technology and truth o Science and technology not only has different attitudes to truth-finding, but also what motivates the choices made in the two fields. o If you’re aspiring for truth or usefulness, you will turn to different kinds of investigations. o This also explains another difference between the two fields: that of external dependence. o Science ideally is autonomous in choosing it’s endeavours – what we call ”academic freedom” o Technology on the other hand is dependent on external needs.
The use of science in technology o We have pointed out differences so far, but what are the overlapping areas of science and technology? o Historically speaking these two fields are quite unrelated, science (or ”natural philosophy”) used to be the domain of the universities and monastaries. o While technology was the domain of the workshops, factories, mines etc. o It was during the 19th century the two started to intermingle. o The idea of technology as ”applied science” is older though (Bacon).
The use of science in technology o Technology is pragmatic and makes use of whatever seems useful, scientific or not. o It views science as a tool-box, from which it can pick and choose. o Some things used in technological research are spin-offs from science, others are consequences of scientific theories.