Lecture 1: Introduction Date: May 10th Popular Science Mythology (Emphasis on Myth) - Ancient Greeks had many different theories about the world, little of which was rooted in science, but mainly in religion. - Then came Galileo, who, with his friends, liberated science from religion and gave birth to scientific theories, the scientific method, and so forth. Removes any mythology or metaphysically from science. - The goal of this course is to debunk these historical and philosophical myths, which will be done by studying HPS. History of Science - The definition includes studying biographies of great scientists, the histories of scientific institutions and how scientific thought has changed over time. - We are most interested in the histories of scientific views and practices. Contemporary Scientific Mosaic - We have a collection of scientific views around the world (Sociology, math, family, etc.) - There are theories of nature, social and formal sciences. Key Terms: - Scientific Mosiac = A set of all accepted theories (not really) - Might be collective, or be held by individuals - Used to define the concept of scientific change - Scientific Change: Any change in the mosaic - Accepted theories, as well as mosaics, have changed throughout history - The mosaic is in a process of constant change Theories of Free Fall - Different philosophers and scientists would view physics, like the apple falling from the tree differently (e.g. Aristotelian vs Newtonian Physics, which are starkly different) - Nowadays, general relativity is the theory that is most accepted (basketball example) - The greater the mass, the greater the curvature of space - There is no force, it is in a state of inertial motion in curved space (the apple and the ground are not attracting each other) - Main takeaway: A phenomenon can have many different theories and explanations History of Science: Questions - What were the major scientific mosaics? - What were the major transitions in these mosaics? Philosophy of Science - What does philosophy have to do with the history of science? Philosophy of Science Questions - Question 1: Absolute Knowledge - Are there theories that are immune to change when the mosaic changes? - Is there absolute knowledge? - Question 2: Scientific Method - Are new theories better than old ones? - How do we evaluate competing scientific theories? - Is there such a thing as a universal and transhistorical method of theory evaluation? - Question 3: Scientific Change - Are there any general patterns in the process of scientific change? - Question 4: Scientific Progress - Given that even time-honoured theories become rejected, is there a scientific process? - Question 5: Science and Pseudoscience - Is there any difference between non-scientific and pseudoscientific theories? If so, what makes a theory scientific? Main Focus For the First Weeks: Lecture 2: Absolute Knowledge - What was accepted yesterday may or may not be accepted today Today’s Question: Is there anything unchangeable in the mosaic? - Can we know anything with absolute certainty? Case 1: Mathematics - 1+2=3; How do we know this is true? - What makes something true? - We can have this knowledge based on experience (Maybe we collected one apple and then two more, and arrived to the conclusion that 1+2=3) - But experience in not how we justify 1+2=3, instead it is based on definitions. - The definition of 2 is 1+1; its not an experimental conclusion, it is just a logical definition found through a deductive conclusion. Case 2: Swans - All swans are white: How can we justify this claim? - Our theory is based on our experience in observing swans - We can use induction; so you generalize the results of your observations, and conclude that all swans white, so that seems to be the only possible route here. - This is very different from what we're doing in mathematics, where you are deducing your conclusions from some basic definitions. Case 3: Gravity - How do we know the law of gravity is true? - Similar to the swans, it is based on experience. Unlike the math question where you can’t imagine there be any other answer, with the case of gravity you can imagine a different answer. Propositions: Analytic vs Synthetic - Case 1 was true in all possible worlds, as long as you stick to the accepted definitions in their formal system, the proposition will follow deductively independent of any structure in the world. - In Case 2, it is conceivable of a universe where swans are different colours, and in Case 3, it is conceivable that there can be differen laws of gravity Analytic Propositions - Deducible from definitions - Cannot contradict the results of experiments or observations - Necessarily hold in all possible worlds; the opposite is inconceivable Synthetic Propositions - Not deducible from definitions - Can contradict the results of experiments or observations - - Do not necessarily hold in all conceivable rules, because the opposite of these are conceivable When making claims about how the world around you is, the opposite is conceivable Analytic propositions are true are absolutely certain. General synthetic propositions must be somehow based on experience, therefore they cannot be absolutely certain - Problem 1: Sensations - We cannot be certain when our senses can be trusted and when they cannot be trusted - Problem 2: How can we possibly arrive at a general conclusion if experience provides us only with singular, individual propositions. - The general statement about white swans assumes that every swan we will encounter in the future will be white. - The problem is that our experience is always limited - we will never observe all the swans in the world, thus our statement can be contradicted. - Inductive generalizations can never be absolutely true - Textbook has some solutions to the problem of induction… - Problem 3: Theory-Ladenness - For example, the colours that we see depends on what colours we are capable of perceiving - Different from Problem 1, because it’s not that your sense are untrustworthy but what you end up perceiving and interpreting depends on prior knowledge and prior abilities - Can there be absolutely certain synthetic propositions? - Yes (Infalliabalism) and No (Fallibilism) - Three reasons for each listed below: - In this lecture we viewed what the problem was, what the viewpoints were and the arguments supporting those viewpoints Conclusion: Theories in empirical science cannot be absolutely certain - Lecture 3: - We believe that some theories in empirical science are better than others - How do we decide which theories are accepted into the scientific mosaic (our worldview); the concept of “acceptance” here needs to be clarified - Acceptance, Use and Pursuit (See definition on lecture slide) - Scientific methods are changeable and not static Tutorial 2: The method begins by identifying the main question, then the problem and the arguments, and then the main conception Lecture 4: - Is scientific change a rational (law-governed) process - Can there be a general theory of scientific change? - No: Particularism (This is the view of most historians nowadays) - This is because there is no universal and fixed method of science - There is nothing universal in science: each historical episode is unique - Yes: Generalism - Why should we believe that there is a general theory of scientific change? - Because diverse cases of scientific change seem to exhibit specific general patterns - Example 1: Drug Efficiency Testing - Method 1: Experimental Confirmation - Method 2: Controlled Trial - What about the placebo effect? It’s possible in this method that patients can believe that it will help, which will help. The solution to this is to perform a blind trial - Method 3: Blind Trial - One group receives pills, another group receives placebos - But what about the experimenter’s bias? Patients can be influenced by researchers - Method 4: Double-Blind Trial - Researchers do not reveal which group is active and non-active - The non active group gets a placebo but the researchers don’t know about it - Method Employment: Hypothetical deductive > Unaccounted effects > Controlled trial > Placebo effect > Single blind test > Experimenters Bias > Double blind test - We started with something very basic and narrowed it down to very specific guidelines - What this means is that change is in our methods, due to changes in our accepted theories. - This is a general pattern; our methods evolve as we learn new things about the world - HD Method: Assumptions - Complexity: The world as it appears in observations is a product of some more fundamental inner mechanism - The idea that there is more to the world that meets the eye - Post hoc explanations: Any phenomenon can be given many different post hoc explanations which are equally precise (E.g. the case of the fallen apple) - Thus, a hypothesis is allowed to introduce unobservable entities provided that it predicts something novel and unobserved, and some of these novel predictions are confirmed. - If scientists followed naive relativism, they would never tolerate unobservable entities. - Mechanism of Scientific Change - - - - These principles are fallible Consists of scientific inertia, theory acceptance, method employment and compatibility. Scientific Inertia: - An element stays in a mosaic until it is replaced Theory Acceptance - A theory becomes accepted only if it satisfies the mosaic’s acceptance criteria or can become accepted if the assessment is inconclusive Compatibility: - Formal Science: Inconsistency-Intolerance - Four colour theorem - Empirical Science: Inconsistency-Tolerance - Kepler’s first law Mosiac Split: When two incompatible theories meet the requirements of the method, the mosaic splits in two. - Famous example: Descartes vs Newton
