RM Lecture 1
Overview
Lecture covers open-ended testing (nine relatively simple questions) focused on course material from tutorials.
Topics include: ways of knowledge acquisition, history of science, and the necessity/importance of understanding science.
Loosely based on Mormon’s chapters 1–2; lectures 3–12 are the “technical part” (behavioral methods) dealing with data processing and methods to acquire knowledge.
This session introduces philosophy of science: What is science? How does scientific knowledge differ from other knowledge acquisition methods? A brief history of science and a look at modern science.
Arts vs. Sciences; formal vs. empirical sciences
University disciplines are commonly categorized as arts vs. sciences.
Arts: culture-focused disciplines (e.g., history, literature, philosophy, war). Questions: What does it mean? How does it feel?
Sciences: fields obtaining data to explain natural phenomena (physics, biology, geology, psychology).
Within sciences, a distinction is drawn between formal sciences and empirical sciences:
Formal sciences: focus on reasoning from abstract relations (e.g., logic, mathematics) rather than direct empirical data.
Empirical sciences: rely on observation of the natural world to gather data (physics, biology, medicine, psychology, pedagogy).
The general philosophical question: What is truth? The distinction between arts and sciences is vague and pragmatic; disciplines can blur lines (e.g., history of science can be taught within sciences).
Two core components in science: empirical observation (collection of new data) and formal (correct reasoning based on data) thinking. Both are crucial in the sciences.
Three non-acceptable ways of knowledge acquisition; the scientific Method
Not acceptable methods in science:
Belief or tenacity: “believe this because I’ve always done so” (stubborn adherence to an opinion).
Intuition: “this must be true” based on gut feeling.
Scientists are human and have intuitions, but these cannot generate new models or serve as arguments without empirical support.
What is required instead: empiricism (systematic observation) and rational thinking (critical reasoning).
Empiricism: systematic, observable, controllable data gathering that others can reproduce.
Rationalism: reasoning and logic used to derive conclusions from premises.
The science method is an ongoing interplay between empirical observation and rational thinking; not one or the other in isolation.
Historical note: medieval Europe and even the 19th century saw beliefs (e.g., witches) grounded in authority or belief rather than evidence. Science rejects such authority-based knowledge in favor of empiricism and rationalism.
Why study the history and tradition of science
Two main reasons to understand the tradition we stand in:
To know where we come from and avoid past mistakes; to see how ideas evolved and why certain laws or theories became dominant.
To cherish science and its method, especially in an era where pundits and influencers may claim knowledge by intuition or opinion alone.
Caution about modern claims: some authors present science as just opinion; science, however, relies on thorough research and acknowledgment of knowledge limits, with corrective mechanisms (peer review, replication, debate).
Psychology; scope of the early lectures
Psychology is a relatively young science (emerging in the 19th century) and does not give a simple picture of how science develops, hence the course focuses more on others (though psychology is an empirical science).
The course emphasizes the standard model and historical reasoning rather than advanced physics details; the aim is to understand the evolution of thinking and the scientific method.
How far back in time should we go to study science; the scientific revolution theme
The question: how far back should one go when reading papers/books? Language evolves, but the way of thinking matters more.
The instructor’s stance: go back about three centuries to understand the major shifts in scientific thinking (e.g., from Aristotle/Plato to modern science).
Key historical figures mentioned:
Aristotle and Plato: major early philosophers shaping ideas about knowledge, the role of ideas vs. observation, and the origin of rationalism vs. empiricism.
The Greeks and the School of Athens symbolizes the division: Plato emphasized reasoning from ideas; Aristotle allowed observations but still valued ideas and deduction.
The empiricist tradition (e.g., empiricism and observation) persisted in later Hellenistic centers like Alexandria, which prized careful observations but did not always emphasize explanations.
The shift toward modern science comes with the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution (c. 1600–1700), sometimes framed as the “age of the scientific revolution.”
Plato vs. Aristotle: rationalism, empiricism, and reasoning styles
Plato (and Socrates in his dialogues): emphasis on reasoning from ideas over direct observation; strong rationalism; knowledge about perfect forms or ideas rather than observed realities.
Aristotle: supported knowledge based on observations of the world but also valued reasoning from general principles; combined empirical observation with logical deduction.
Implication: initial scientific thinking favored ideas and reasoning (Plato) but later balanced with observational data (Aristotle) to form a more robust scientific approach.
The Greeks introduced the idea that there are areas of knowledge (logic, geometry) that are formal sciences focused on reasoning about abstract relations rather than direct empirical observation.
The Hellenistic period and early empirical practice
Alexandria became a major center for science during the Hellenistic era; emphasis on careful observations, cataloging, and building knowledge, though explanations of how systems work were still developing.
The transition to a more empirical approach prepared the ground for later breakthroughs in physics and astronomy.
Ptolemaic and Copernican views; the birth of the heliocentric model and early astronomy
For a long time, the geocentric (Earth-centered) view prevailed (Aristotle’s model). Early astronomers tracked the patterns of celestial bodies and their movements.
The shift toward heliocentrism (Sun-centered solar system) was debated and culminated in major figures like Copernicus and Galileo, challenging the Earth-at-center view.
Galileo’s role: a key early modern scientist who advocated experimentation and observation to test ideas about motion and astronomy.
The role of experiments and key demonstrations
Galileo’s famous approach: test assumptions through experiments rather than relying solely on authority or tradition. Classic example: dropping two objects of different masses to test how fast they fall and how air resistance affects falling objects.
Illustrative demonstrations from the lecture:
The air-resistance issue: in air, heavier objects may fall faster, but in a vacuum (no air resistance), objects fall with the same acceleration regardless of mass (as later formalized by Galileo).
A modern analog: NASA’s vacuum chamber in Cleveland, Ohio, used to simulate space conditions and test spacecraft and pressure vessels.
The principle lesson: removing confounding factors (like air resistance) through controlled experiments is essential to uncover true natural laws.
A narrative thread: the famous anecdote about Galileo dropping a heavy and a light object; in a vacuum their fall would be identical, illustrating the universality of gravitational acceleration independent of mass in the appropriate conditions.
The Copernican revolution and Newton’s synthesis
The radical shift from a geocentric to a heliocentric model required new explanations for planetary orbits and their shapes.
The Royal Society in London vs. Cambridge scientists and the emergence of a more quantitative approach to gravity.
Newton’s contribution: a unifying theory of gravitation that could explain planetary motions and terrestrial motion with a mathematical framework.
Newton’s Principia, published in 1687, is identified as a cornerstone work that translated observation and reasoning into a formal, mathematical description of gravity and motion.
The transition summarized: from a focus on ideas (Plato) to observations and mathematical modeling (Newton) with empirical testing guiding theory.
From ancient to modern science: the methodological shift
The early emphasis on ideas (Plato) eventually gave way to a balance of ideas and observations (Aristotle, Alexandria, Galileo).
The modern scientific method is characterized by an interplay of empirical data and rational deduction, formalization of theories, and mathematical expression of laws (e.g., gravity).
The shift includes the move from qualitative descriptions to quantitative laws tested with experiments and observations.
The modern practice of science and communication
In contemporary science, the typical workflow involves:
Analyzing outcomes and data
Reporting findings at conferences or in publications
Writing for a scientific audience in peer-reviewed journals
The lecturer presents a schematic that, despite seeming dry, underpins how scientific articles are written and interpreted—the structure, not the emotion or excitement, is the core of scientific communication.
The human element remains: scientists are passionate about their work, and collaboration across borders can lead to breakthroughs (e.g., CRISPR-Cas9 story described below).
A contemporary scientific breakthrough: CRISPR-Cas9
Case example: The discovery of CRISPR-Cas9 as a programmable genome-editing tool—described as the ultimate biological scissors.
Key players mentioned: Jennifer Doudna (USA, Berkeley) and Emmanuelle Charpentier (Europe).
Their collaboration led to groundbreaking work that earned the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2020.
The narrative emphasizes how reading scientific articles reveals clear, straightforward descriptions of methods and results, often with less sensationalism than public discourse might imply, yet the underlying science is profoundly exciting and transformative.
How scientists contribute and publish
Publication avenues include:
Books (more common in philosophy/history) versus journal articles (typical in psychology and science).
Peer-reviewed journal articles are the primary, citable sources in science.
The review process: editors and peer reviewers critique submissions; acceptance may require minor revisions or, less commonly, conditional acceptance.
The speaker offers a glimpse into the editor-reviewer exchange (illustrative letters from editors to authors), highlighting the real process behind seemingly straightforward publications.
Implications, connections, and modern relevance
The philosophy of science emphasizes humility about knowledge: acknowledging limitations and the evolving nature of scientific understanding.
The discussion connects to broader themes: the value of empirical data, the strength of reasoning, and the necessity of transparent methods for reproducibility.
Ethical and practical implications include careful communication to avoid misinformation (e.g., distinguishing opinion from evidence) and recognizing the role of peer review in validating claims.
Real-world relevance: modern biology (CRISPR) shows how robust scientific reasoning can lead to transformative technologies, with broad implications for medicine, ethics, and society.
Quick recap of key concepts and terms (with equations where relevant)
Empiricism: knowledge gained through systematic observation and data collection that others can reproduce.
Rationalism: knowledge gained through reasoning and logic from premises.
Scientific knowledge: results from a continuous interplay between empirical observation and rational thinking.
Formal sciences: logic and mathematics; strong emphasis on deduction from abstract principles; less reliance on empirical data.
Empirical sciences: physics, biology, psychology, etc.; rely on observation and experiments to infer laws about the natural world.
Philosophical cautions: avoid tenacious belief and unchecked intuition; rely on data and reasoning.
Distinctive historical milestones:
The Greeks: Plato (ideas-based, rationalism), Aristotle (observation-based but with deductive structure), Hellenistic empirical practice in Alexandria.
The Renaissance and Scientific Revolution (c. 1600–1700): shift toward empirical testing and mathematical description.
Newton and the Principia (1687): formal mathematical law of gravitation and planetary motion.
Fundamental equation illustrating gravity (as used in the lecture):
Newton’s universal gravitation:
The force falls off with distance as the square, i.e.,
Zero in numeral systems: the introduction of the zero digit in numeric notation enabled more complex arithmetic and growth in mathematical computation.
Tomorrow’s focus (hint from the lecturer)
A deeper dive into inductive vs. deductive reasoning and how these modes of reasoning relate to the scientific method in practice.
Continuation of the discussion on how scientific arguments are built, tested, and communicated within the scientific community.