Week 1: Science & Demarcation

Wat zijn de verschillen tussen philosophy of science en science?

The philosopher of science is not concerned with answering scientific questions, but instead the concern is answering questions about science

General questions about science/general philosophy of science:

• How is science different from other activities that claim knowledge?

• Is science the unique possible form of knowledge?

• What is a good scientific explanation?

• How does science progress and change?

Questions about specific fields/philosophy of the special sciences:

• Philosophy of physics, biology, cognitive science, AI, law, etc.

Wat zijn common misconceptions about the philosophy of science en een antwoord op ze?

1. Philosophy of science is anti-science
   -Most philosophers of science treat science as our best source of knowledge

2. It is useless to working scientists
   -Debates about p-values, replication, causal inference and concepts like gene, species or mental disorder are philosophical and shape how research is done

3. Philosophers judge science from the armchair
   -Many philosophers of science were trained in a science and work with case studies, history, scientific practice and formal models

4. Philosophy of science is the ethics of science
   -Ethics is one part, the core questions are about evidence, explanation, causation, theory change and what exists

5. Science and philosophy are separate enterprises
   -Boundary is loose for important problems, like foundations of physics and cognitive science

What are lessons from the history of science?

1. Science as we know it today was not always the main form of inquiry (Before Galileo and Bacon it was observing, after it was experimenting)

2. Science emerged in a particular historical context

Wat zijn vier images of science?

Image of science is a conception of what science is or should be about

1. Science is a reliable form of accumulating knowledge
   -Advocates: bacon, early Royal Society
   -Goal: observe, generalize, and control nature

2. Science proceeds with conjectures, not merely observation
   -Advocate: Karl Popper
   -These conjectures (hypotheses) are never beyond criticism

3. Science aims at a unified complete account of nature
   -There are objective logical relations
   -Some findings are objectively well established

4. Science is a human activity and human factors matter
   -Science is shaped by human interaction
   -Scientific choices are affected by researchers’ context (including politics)

Wat is Popper’s Demarcation Problem?

• When should a theory be ranked as scientific?

• Is there a criterion for the scientific character of a theory

• He wants to distinguish science from pseudoscience

Popper is not interested in truth or acceptability

Popper looks at four purportedly scientific theories:

• Einstein’s theory of relativity

• Freud’s psychoanalysis

• Marx’s historical materialism

• Alder’s individual psychology

There is a difference between 2-4 and 1. What is wrong with 2-4?

The issue is explanatory power: these theories explain too much

Wat is Popper’s solution?

Falsifiability. The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability

A theory is falsifiable if:

• We can conceive of an observation or experimental result that would contradict or refute its predictions

• Its predictions are risky

• It has high empirical content

Wat is het eerste probleem met Popper’s falsifiability criterion?

We can only falsify whole systems of hypotheses (bundles)

• Pierre Duhem: hypotheses are tested in bundles (Quine-Duhem thesis)

• Experiments rely on assumptions about background conditions

• If your experiment fails, you don’t know whether the hypothesis is false or the background conditions are false

• You could revise the background conditions to save your theory

Wat is het tweede probleem met Popper’s falsifiability criterion?

We can introduce adjustments to save falsified theories

• Recall Copernicus’ heliocentric model

• Hypothesis: the sun is in the center

• Falsifiable prediction: the stars should move

• Background observation: there are fixed stars

• Does this falsify Copernicus’ model?

• Adjustment: the stars are very far

How is this different from the adjustment in for example psychoanalysis?

Wat is belangrijk bij de kritiek van Paul Thagard?

Why astrology is a pseudoscience

Niet altijd goed uitgelegd door anderen, ook al zijn de meeste mensen het met elkaar eens

A better answer to determine the scientific status of a theory requires looking at the context in which scientific theories emerge

Thagard heeft kritiek op de argumenten van Bok, Jerom en Kurtz

1. Astrology originated as part of a magical world
   -Thagard: Origins are irrelevant to scientific status

2. Planets are too distant for there to be any physical foundation for astrology
   -Thagard: Lack of physical foundation is not sufficient to mark a theory as unscientific

3. People believe it merely out of longing for comfort
   -Thagard: People can believe in good theories for illegitimate reasons

Wat zijn criteria that fail bij astrology?

Testability/verifiability criterion fails

• Astrology is verifiable

• Prediction: if you are born under a certain sign, you will be more likely to adopt a particular occupation

• Gauquelin tested this with 25000 people with no success

Popper’s falsifiability

• Astrology can be retained by introducing auxiliary hypotheses:

• Falsification only occurs when a better theory comes along

• In principle, we can replace astrology with a better theory

Clarification: Astrology has many problems. But this is not sufficient, even the best theories have unresolved problems

Wat is Thagard’s criterion?

Thagard’s Demarcation Principle: A theory or discipline which purports to be scientific is pseudoscientific if and only if:

1. It has been less progressive than alternative theories over a long period of time, and faces many unsolved problems, but

2. the community of practitioners makes little attempt to develop the theory towards solutions of the problems, shows no concern for attempts to evaluate the theory in relation to others, and is selective in considering confirmations and disconfirmations

In the case of astrology:

• Astrology is unprogressive

• Problems are outstanding

• Alternative theories of personality and behaviour are available

• Astrologers are unconcerned with revising their theory in light of the alternatives

Wat is de visie van Feynman?

Cargo Cult science als metafoor voor slechte wetenschap

Cargo Cults (eilandbewoners) bouwden vliegveld na, na de Tweede Wereldoorlog, deden rituelen na om de vliegtuigen met cargo terug te laten komen

Deden de hele vorm goed, maar het werkte niet

Cargo Cult science is wetenschap die het hele proces goed doet (statistische analyses, experimenten, rapporten, termen). Maar toch geen echte wetenschap is, omdat ‘a kind of scientific integrity’ ontbreekt. De eerlijke, kritische poging om de eigen theorie onderuit te halen

1. Genuine science gives complete reports
   -Try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution

2. Genuine science avoids confirmation bias
   -The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool

3. Genuine science does not lie/mislead laypeople
   -Example: the value of astronomy

Wat is Merton’s starting point?

Robert Merton is considered the founder of the sociology of science

Merton’s starting point:

• Science is under attack (WW2)

• Scientists recognize themselves as part of society

• He looks at science as an institution

• He does not look at science as a set of methodological canons

Wat is Ethos of Science?

Merton

It comprises a set of institutional imperatives (norms). These imperatives (norms) are:

1. Transmitted to science students

2. Internalized by the scientists

3. Reenforced by sanctions

4. Binding for methodological and (importantly) moral reasons

Welke drie vragen stelt Merton bij elke imperative/norm?

1. What is the imperative?

2. How do other human practices differ from the imperative?

3. Within science, what attitudes are incompatible with the imperative?

Wat is belangrijk bij universalism?

Merton

• This imperative is rooted in the impersonal character of science

• Truth-claims, whatever their source, are to be subjected to preestablished impersonal criteria: consonant with prevously confirmed knowledge

• Race, nationality, religion, class, personal qualities are irrelevant

• Incompatible attitude: create cast-standards

Wat is belangrijk bij communism?

Merton

• Scientific goods are owned by the community, not by individuals

• Property rights are minimal: property is limited to recognition

• Secrecy is the antithesis of this norm

• Scientists aknowledge their dependence upon a cultural heritage ‘If I have seen farther, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants’

  • Technology in a capitalistic society is incompatible with this imperative

Wat is belangrijk bij disinterestedness?

Merton

• Scientists engage in disinterested research because they are highly accountable to their peers (sanctions). Contrast this with other professions

• Fraud is rare

• This reduces the possibility of exploiting the credulity and ignorance of laymen

Wat is belangrijk bij organized skepticism?

Merton

• Scientific findings should be critically scrutinized before being accepted

• Temporary suspension of judgment

• Detached examination of beliefs

Wat is de general response, Thagard’s response, Feynman’s response en Merton’s response op de vraag: Is addressing the demarcation problem important?

Very general response: If you believe that science is the best form of knowledge humans can achieve, you might want to know what makes it special

Thagard’s response: Social concern: There is public neglect of genuine science (people believe in a lot of crap)

Feynman’s response: People’s beliefs in pseudoscience have bad consequences for them (pseudoscience in education and in how to treat criminals)

Merton’s response: Since the mid-20th century, scientists have had a more pressing need to distinguish their activity from other human activities (Merton does not frame his ideas in terms of demarcation)