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.