HPSC1003 Philosophy of Science 1
Course Syllabus
2016-17 session | Toby Friend | [email protected]
This is an introductory module to the philosophy of science. The course is divided into two parts:
(1) how we gain knowledge in science, and (2) what is true in science. Part (1) concerns
debates over the scientific method as a way to gain knowledge about the world. We look at the
proposed demarcation between science and pseudoscience; the nature of empiricism and its
opposition to rationalism (Hume, Bacon); the verificationist ideal (Ayer); the logic of and
problems of induction (Hume, Russell) and confirmation (Goodman, Hempel); issues
surrounding falsificationism (Popper, Duhem, Kuhn); anarchic (Feyerarbend) and Feminist
(Harding, Longino) attitudes to scientific method. Part (2) concerns debates over scientific
realism. We look at the no-miracles argument (Putnam); constructive empiricism (van
Fraassen); pessimistic meta-induction (Laudan); the structure of scientific theories; and the
purpose of truth and explanation in science. Philosophy of Science 1 will provide you with the
background knowledge that you will need for other philosophy courses that you will take in later
years. You do not need prior knowledge of philosophy or science to do this course.
Course information
Course website:
Moodle Web
site:
Assessment:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/friend//HPSC1003
https://moodle.ucl.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=38539
Timetable:
www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/hpsc
Prerequisites:
Required texts:
Course tutor(s):
Contact:
Web:
Office location:
Office hours:
No prerequisites
[no required texts – readings on moodle]
Toby Friend (Lecturer) / Rory Jubber (Seminar Leader)
[email protected] ; [email protected]
TBC
Room B14, 22 Gordon Square
TBC
Collaborative poster (formative); one essay (2,500 words - 50%); one exam
(3 hours - 50%);
Schedule
Lecture Date
Lecture title
Seminar activity
1
03/10/16 Demarcation (I): Science and Pseudoscience
2
05/10/16 Proving what?: Empiricism
3
10/10/16 Proving where?: Verificationism
4
12/10/16 Proving how? (I): (Old riddle of) induction
5
17/10/16 Proving how? (II): New riddle of induction
6
19/10/16 Weighing the evidence not proving:
Bayesianism
7
24/10/16 Falsifying not proving: Popper’s falsificationism Discuss seminar questions
8
26/10/16 Falsifying why?: Kuhn & normal science
9
31/10/16 Falsifying how?: Duhem & auxiliary hypotheses Discuss poster content :
Discuss seminar questions
02/11/16 Falsifying what?: Quine & underdetermined
10
Discuss seminar questions
Organise groups for poster
project : Discuss seminar
questions
Discuss poster project
choices : Discuss seminar
questions
science
Reading week
11
14/11/16 Revolutionary science (Kuhn)
12
16/11/16 Anarchic science (Feyerarbend)
13
21/11/16 Feminist science (Longino, Harding)
14
23/11/16 Are scientific theories true?: No Miracles
argument
21/11/16
Discuss seminar questions
Essay writing workshop :
Discuss seminar questions
Poster hand-in deadline (11am)
15
28/11/16 Are scientific theories empirically adequate?: Discuss seminar questions
Constructive Empiricism
16
30/11/16 Will scientific theories ever be true?:
Pessimistic Meta-Induction
30/11/16
Poster presentations (4pm)
17
05/12/16 Are scientific theories even truth-apt?: The
structure of scientific theories
18
07/12/16 Is truth limited?: Idealisation
19
12/12/16 What is a scientific theory for?: Explanation
and Understanding
20
14/12/16 Demarcation (II): Science and Pseudoscience
09/01/16
Essay deadline (11am)
.../05/16
Exam (3hr)
Discuss seminar questions
Discuss seminar questions
Assessment
Summary
Description
Deadline
Specifics
Formative
Collaborative Poster
21/11/16 (11am)
To be presented 4pm, 30/11/16 in
North Cloisters, Main building
50%
Essay
09/01/17 (11am)
2500 words
50%
Exam
05/17 (exact date
and time TBC)
3 hrs
Assignments
Essays must be submitted via Moodle by 11:00 on the essay due date. In order to be deemed
‘complete’ on this module, students must submit both essays and sit the exam. For assessment
generally you will need to master the content of the lectures, the essential readings, and a
selection of recommended or individually researched readings for essays.
Collaborative Poster (formative)
In groups of 2-3, you should investigate the research questions, method of investigation and output
of an ongoing research project in a science department within UCL. Consider the questions
discussed in lectures on the course so far and how they might apply or otherwise relate to your
chosen research project. For example: what makes the project scientific (rather than
pseudoscientific)? Are the researchers trying to verify or falsify any questions? What issues
concerning induction or falsification might the researchers realistically or even conceivably face? Is
this work ‘normal science’ or ‘revolutionary science’? Display your thoughts coherently and
succinctly alongside a very brief introduction to the research project on an A1 poster to be
presented in Week 8.
Question and Answer forums on Moodle
Students are expected to contribute weekly to online moodle forums either by starting a thread with
a question relevant to the essential reading or add to responses to questions already posed.
Aims & Objectives
Aims
To teach students the basic foundational thinkers and topics in philosophy of science, which will
provide the bedrock for more advanced courses in Years 2 and 3. To provide students with a
critical awareness of the core foundational topics in the philosophy of science.
Objectives
Students will be able to evaluate the key philosophical accounts of many core topics in the
philosophy of science, including induction, falsification, verification, scientific revolution, realism
and idealisation.
Students will be able to work collaboratively in order to present the application of a philosophical
idea to a scientific case study.
Students will gain knowledge of a science research project ongoing currently in UCL.
Students will engage with Moodle forum discussions.
Students will be able to write philosophically cohesive essays, where philosophical theories are
explained and arguments for them critically evaluated.
Students will be able to discuss philosophical arguments systematically and present these to their
peers.
Course expectations
Students are expected to attend 2 lectures per week and 1 seminar. Students should post
questions or comments on Moodle discussion forums.
Students **should read the essential readings in advance of each lecture** and will be expected to
actively participate in seminar discussion.
Reading List
Useful general texts
Curd, M. & Cover, J.A. 2012. Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues, 2nd Edition, W.W. Norton
& Company (2nd edition).
Chalmers, A. 2013. What is this thing called science? Open University Press (4th edition).
Godfrey-Smith, P. 2003. Theory and Reality, University of Chicago Press.
Ladyman, J. 2002. Understanding Philosophy of Science, Routledge.
Lecture 1 - Demarcation (I): Science and Pseudoscience
Demarcating philosophy of science, science and pseudoscience.
Essential reading
Hansson, S. O. 2015. "Science and Pseudo-Science", The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Spring 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),
<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/pseudo-science/>.
Recommended Reading
Lakatos, I. 1978. “(Introduction:) Science and Pseudoscience”, in The Methodology of Scientific
Research Programmes: Philosophical Papers Vol. I, Worrall, J. and Currie, G. (eds) Cambridge
University Press. Chapter 1, pp.1-7.
Thagard, P. R. 1978. “Why Astrology is a Pseudoscience”, in Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting
of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1:223-234
Seminar questions
-Is there a difference between science and pseudoscience? If so, what is it? If not, why not?
-What is the difference between scientific questioning and philosophical questioning about
science?
Lecture 2 - Proving what?: Empiricism
Introduction to Hume’s fork between matters of fact and relations of ideas.
Essential reading
Hume. D. 1777 [1975]. Sections 2, 3, 4 (Part 1) in Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, L. A.
Selby-Bigge (ed.). Clarendon Press; also <http://www.davidhume.org/texts/ehu.html>
Recommended reading
Robert L. 1999. Why Bacon’s Method is Not Certain. History of Philosophy Quarterly 16 (2):181 192.
C. D. Broad. 1926. “An address delivered at Cambridge on the occasion of the Bacon
Tercentenary”, <http://www.ditext.com/broad/bacon.html>.
Markie, P. 2015. "Rationalism vs. Empiricism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosoph (Summer
2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),
<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/rationalism-empiricism/>.
Seminar questions
-What is the division Hume makes between types of knowledge? Do you think he is correct?
Are there any other types of knowledge?
Lecture 3 - Proving where?: Verificationism
Introduction to verificationism, the rejection of metaphysics and the distinction between theoretical
and observation (“protocol”) statements.
Essential Reading
Ayer, A. J. 1952. "The Elimination of Metaphysics" (Chapter 1), in Language, Truth and Logic,
Dover Publications Inc,
Recommended reading
Ayer, A.J. 1936. “The Principle of Verifiability”, in Mind, 45:199-203.
Okasha, S. “Verificationism, Realism and Skepticism”, in Erkenntnis 55:371-385 (2001)
Seminar questions
-What kinds of knowledge does a verificationist believe in?
-Why might a verificationist reject metaphysics?
Lecture 4 - Proving how? (I): (Old riddle of) induction
Introduction to the problem of induction.
Essential reading
Russell, B. 1998. “On Induction” (chapter 6 ) in The Problems of Philosophy, OUP.
Recommended reading
Hume, D. 1738 [1888]. “Of the inference from the Impression to the Idea” (Book 1, Part 3, section
6), in Treatise of Human Nature, L. A. Selby-Bigge (ed.), Clarendon Press; also
<http://www.davidhume.org/texts/thn.html
Vickers, J. 2016. "The Problem of Induction", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(Spring 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),
<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/induction-problem/>.
Seminar questions
-What is the problem of induction? Is it especially problematic for verificationists?
Lecture 5 - Proving how? (II): New riddle of induction
Introduction to Goodman’s problem of confirmation.
Essential reading
Goodman, N. 1979. “The New Riddle of Induction” (Chapter 3) in Fact Fiction Forecast, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge Mass.
Recommended reading
Huber, F. 2016. “Confirmation and Induction”, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Godfrey-Smith, P. 2003. Theory and Reality, University of Chicago press. Chapter 3.
Seminar questions
-What is Goodman’s new riddle of induction? Why might it cause a problem for confirmation
of theories?
-How does Goodman solve the new riddle of induction?
Lecture 6 - Weighing evidence not proving: Bayseanism
Introduction to Bayesian confirmation.
Essential reading
Chalmers, A. 2013. “The Bayesian Approach” (Chapter 12), in What is this thing called science?
Open University Press.
Recommended reading
Talbott, W. 2015. "Bayesian Epistemology", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer
2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-bayesian/>
Earman, J. 1992. Bayes or Bust? A Critical Examination of Bayesian Confirmation Theory,
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Chapter 2.
Seminar questions
-What is Bayes’ theorem?
-What is Bayesian confirmation?
**Time should be put aside to discuss students’ poster project**
Lecture 7 - Falsifying not proving: Popper’s falsificationism
Introduction to Popper’s falsificationism.
Essential reading
Popper, K. 1963. “Science, Conjectures and Refutations” in Conjectures and Refutations, London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul: 33-39.
Recommended reading
Thornton, S. 2015. "Karl Popper", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2015 Edition),
Edward N. Zalta (ed.), <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2015/entries/popper/>.
Seminar questions
-Why might Popper’s falsification method succeed where verificationist method seems to
fail?
-What is the logical distinction between the two?
Lecture 8 - Falsifying why?: Kuhn & normal science
Introduction to Kuhn’s notion of “normal science” and the problem it poses for falsificationism.
Essential reading
“Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research?”, in Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, edited
by I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave, London: Cambridge University Press: 1–23
Recommended reading
Bird, A. 2000. ““Normal and Revolutionary Sceince” (Chapter 2), in Thomas Kuhn, Acumen.
Kuhn, T. 1962. Chapters 2-4, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago
Press.
Seminar questions
-What is ‘normal science’ for Kuhn. Does it exist? How might it pose a problem for the
falsificationist method?
Lecture 9 - Falsifying how?: Duhem & auxiliary hypotheses
Introduction to Duhem’s problem with falsificationism and Recommended concerns over
unfalsifiable scientific claims.
Essential reading
Duhem, P. 1906, [1954]. “Physical Theory and Experiment” (Part 2, chapter 6), in The Aim and
Structure of Physical Theory, Princeton University Press, P. Weiner (trans.).
Recommended reading
Ladyman, J. 2002. “Falsificationism” (Chapter 3) in Understanding Philosophy of Science,
Routledge.
Lakatos, I. 1965 “The methodology of scientific research programmes”, in I. Lakatos and A.
Musgrave (eds) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Seminar questions
-Is it possible to falsify a conjecture? What is the problem Duhem posed for falsification? Is it
serious?
-Are all scientific hypotheses logically/conceptually falsifiable?
Lecture 10 - Falsifying What?: Quine & underdetermined science
Comparison of Duhem and Quine theses on underdetermination. Comparison of holistic and
comparative holism.
Essential reading
Gillies, D. 1993. “The Duhem Thesis and the Quine Thesis” (Chapter 5), in Philosophy of Science
in the Twentieth Century: Four Central Themes, Blackwell.
Recommended reading
Stanford, K. 2016. "Underdetermination of Scientific Theory", The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Spring 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/
spr2016/entries/scientific-underdetermination/>
Quine, W.V.O. 1951. “Two Dogmas of Empiricism”, in The Philosophical Review, 60(1):20-43.
Seminar questions
-What is the difference between Quine’s and Duhem’s theses of underdetermination? Is one
more plausible than the other?
-What is the difference between contrastive and holistic underdetermination? Can one be
correct of science without the other?
Lecture 11 - Revolutionary science (Kuhn)
Introduction to Kuhn’s notion of “scientific revolution”, scientific paradigms and their
commensurability.
Essential reading
Kuhn, T. 1970 [1996]. “The Nature and Necessity of Scientific Revolutions” (Chapter 9), in The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press.
Recommended reading
Bird, A. 2000. “Normal and Revolutionary Sceince” (Chapter 2), in Thomas Kuhn, Acumen.
Kuhn, T. 1970 [1996]. Chapters 7, 8, 10 in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of
Chicago Press.
Darden, L. 1976. “Reasoning in Scientific Change”, in Studies in the History and Philosophy of
Science 7:127-169
Seminar questions
-What is the contrast between ‘normal science’ and ‘scientific revolution’ for Kuhn?
-How do scientific communities under different paradigms compare? Are their theories
commensurable?
Lecture 12 - Anarchic Science (Feyerabend)
Introduction to Feyerarbend’s approach to scientific method, and his claim that “Anything goes”.
Essential reading
Feyerabend, P. Chapters 1, 2, 18, in Against Method, Verso.
Recommended reading
Chalmers, A. 2013. “Feyerarbend’s Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge”, in What is this thing called
science?, Open University Press.
Laudan, L. 1989. “For Method: or, Against Feyerabend”, in An Intimate Relation, J.R. Brown & J.
Mittelstrass (eds.), Kluwer.
Meynell, H. 1978. “Feyerabend's Method”, in The Philosophical Quarterly, 28:242-252.
Munévar, G. & Lamb, D. (eds.). 2000. The Worst Enemy of Science? Essays in Memory of Paul
Feyerabend, New York, Oxford University Press
Seminar questions
-Is there a scientific method? Should there be?
Lecture 13 - Feminist science (Longino, Harding)
Introduction to Feminist approaches to the scientific methods, values and epistemology.
Essential readings
Longino, H. 1989. “Feminist critiques of rationality: critiques of science or philosophy of science?”,
in Women’s Studies International Forum 12(3):261-9.
Recommended readings
Anderson, E. 2015. "Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science", The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),
<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/feminism-epistemology/>.
Crasnow, S., Wylie, A., Bauchspies, W. K. and Potter, E. 2015 "Feminist Perspectives on
Science", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),
<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/feminist-science/>.
Harding, S. 1986. Preface and chapter 1, in The Science Question in Feminism, Cornell University
press.
Harding, S. 1995. “’Strong objectivity’, a response to the new objectivity question’, in Synthese,
104:331-349
Longino, H. 1987. “Can there be a feminist science?”, in Hypatia 2(3):51-64.
Longino, H. 1980. “Introduction”, in Science as Social Knowledge.
Seminar questions
-What is a feminist critique of science? What is an example of a feminist critique of science?
-How does the subjugation of marginalised groups in science affect its development?
-How can a feminist epistemology be applied to scientific practice?
Lecture 14 - Are theories true?: No miracles argument
Introduction to Realism and Putnam’s No Miracle’s argument.
Essential reading
Putnam, H. 1976. “What is Realism?” in Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series,
76:177-194.
Recommended reading
Musgrave, A. 1988. "The Ultimate Argument for Scientific Realism" (pp.229-52), in Robert Nola
(ed.), Relativism and Realism in Science, Kluwer.
V. Fraassen, B. 1980. “Arguments Concerning Scientific Realism” (Chapter 2), in The Scientific
Image, Clarendon Press.
Carrier, M. 1993. “What is Right with the Miracle Argument: Establishing a Taxonomy of Natural
Kinds”, in Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 24(3):391-409.
Seminar questions
-What is Realism in philosophy of science? Do you agree with it?
-What is the No Miracles argument? Is it a suitable way to defend Realism?
Lecture 15 - Are theories only empirically adequate?: Constructive Empiricism
Introduction to Van Fraassen’s Constructive Empiricism.
Essential reading
Monton, B. and Mohler, C. 2014. "Constructive Empiricism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),
<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/constructive-empiricism/>.
Recommended reading
Rosen, G., 1994, “What is Constructive Empiricism?”, in Philosophical Studies, 74(2): 143–178.
Hacking, I., 1985, “Do We See Through a Microscope?”, in Churchland and Hooker 1985, pp. 132–
152.
Alspector-Kelly, M., 2001, “Should the Empiricist be a Constructive Empiricist?”,Philosophy of
Science, 68(4): 413–431.
Seminar questions
-Are electrons/cells/distant galaxies/the dark side of the moon observable?
-What are the limitations of observability?
-Should observability play a role in what we are realist about?
Lecture 16 - Will theories ever be true?: Pessimistic meta-induction
Introduction to the argument from Pessimistic meta-induction
Essential reading
Laudan, L. A. 1981. “Confutation of Convergent Realism”, in Philosophy of Science, 48(1):19-49.
Recommended Reading
J. Saatsi. 2005. “On the Pessimistic Meta-Induction and two Fallacies” in Philosophy of Science,
75(5):1088-1098.
Psillos, S. 1996. Scientific Realism and the 'Pessimistic Induction', Philosophy of Science, Vol. 63,
Supplement. Proceedings of the 1996 Biennial Meetings: S306-S314.
Seminar questions
-What is the argument from pessimistic meta-induction? Is it persuasive?
Lecture 17 - Are scientific theories even truth-apt?: The structure of scientific theories
Introduction to the debate over scientific theories’ structure and their relationship to scientific
models
Essential reading
Winther, R. G. 2016. "The Structure of Scientific Theories", The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Spring 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),
<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/structure-scientific-theories/>.
Recommended reading
Morgan M. and Morrison, M. (eds) 1999. “Introduction”, in Models as Mediators, Cambridge
University Press.
C.F. Craver (2001) “Structures of Scientific Theories” in Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of
Science, P.K. Machamer and M. Silberstein (eds). Oxford: Blackwell.
Seminar questions
-What does it mean to be ‘truth-apt’?
-What is a scientific theory?
-What kinds of models are used in science? How does their use relate to the truth of
theories?
Lecture 18 - Is truth limited?: Idealisation
Introduction to idealisation in science and its relationship to the pursuit of truth.
Essential reading
Elgin, C. 2004. “True Enough” in Philosophical Issues, 14:113-131
Recommended reading
Cartwright, N. 1983. How the Laws of Physics Lie, Clarendon Press. Introduction.
Weisberg, M. 2007. “Three kinds of idealisation”, in The Journal of Philosophy, 104:639-659
Seminar questions
-Is truth important/essential to a good scientific theory?
Lecture 19 - What is a scientific theory for?: Explanation and Understanding
Introduction to and comparison of understanding and explanation in science and their relationship
to truth and idealisaton.
Essential reading
Lipton, P. “Understanding without explanation” (chapter 3), in Scientific Understanding, de Regt, H.,
Leonelli, S. and Eigner, K. (eds), Pittsburgh University Press.
Recommended reading
Lloyd, E. and Anderson, C. 1991. “Empiricism, Objectivity and Explanation” in Midwest Studies in
Philosophy, 18:121-131
Psillos, S. (2002), “Explanation” (Part 3, pp. 215-293), in Causation & Explanation, Acumen.
Hempel, C.1998 [1962]. “Two Basic Types of Explanation” (pp.685-719), in Philosophy of Science:
The Central Issues, Curd, M. and Cover, J. A. (eds), W. W. Norton & Company.
Seminar questions
--What is scientific explanation? What is scientific understanding? How are the two
logically/conceptually connected?
Lecture 20 - Demarcation (II): Science and Pseudoscience
Course Summary, Q&A and exam preparation.
Essential reading
Hansson, S. O. 2015. "Science and Pseudo-Science", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(Spring 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),
<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/pseudo-science/>. (....YES, AGAIN!)
Seminar question
**Final chance to raise questions about essay-format and content**