• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Unit 3. Anything goes?
 

Unit 3. Anything goes?

on

  • 1,093 views

Unit 3. Anything goes? [Philosophy of Science]

Unit 3. Anything goes? [Philosophy of Science]

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,093
Views on SlideShare
1,054
Embed Views
39

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
42
Comments
0

2 Embeds 39

http://ogm-philosophy-of-science.wikispaces.com 38
https://twitter.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Unit 3. Anything goes? Unit 3. Anything goes? Presentation Transcript

    • Unit 3Revolutions and relativism
    • So far:
      Logical positivism and confirmation
      Critical rationalism (Popper) and falsification
      Today: sociology of science
    • In the sixties and seventies of the last century a new generation of philosophers of science emerged.
      Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)
      Paul Feyerabend (1924-1994)
      ImreLakatos (1922-1974)
    • Thomas Kuhn
    • Popper was describing the way science ought to work (normative)
      Thomas Kuhn was interested in the way science actually works (descriptive)
    • Popper and the logical positivist made a rational reconstruction
      They focus on the reasons not the causes for scientific behavior.
    • Take a game of chess
      • The rules of the game are internal to the game
      • Your motives four playing a game of chess are however external
    • Conceptual frameworks
      Facts do not really speak for themselves
      Facts are part of a conceptual framework
      Kuhn calls such a conceptual framework a paradigm
    • paradigms
    • The pre-paradigmatic period
      The pre-paradigmatic period is the period before there is a paradigm.
      There is confusion among ‘scientists’ because they do not share a common paradigm.
      Scientist think differently about what facts are and what are important problems.
    • Normal science as puzzle solving
      • Normal science begins when a scientist comes up with a new and interesting view, a model.
      • After a paradigm is established, researchers can agree on the problems and facts.
    • Anomalies
      If an anomaly occurs it is not the problem of the paradigm but of the scientist.
      Ad hoc adjustments
      No falsification: Scientist are dogmatic
    • Crisis
      If to much anomalies occur there is a crises
      Confusion returns, and the old paradigm starts to crumble.
      Two solutions:
      The issues are resolved
      A new paradigm is found, revolution.
    • Revolution
      New (young) scientist come up with a fresh idea.
      A paradigmatic shift occurs (Gestalt-switch), a change of worldview.
    • Paradigms are incommensurable
    • Assignment
      Think of three examples you consider paradigm shifts
      These examples could about science, society, or your own life
      Present it in front of the group
    • progress
       why does science progress?
      how does it progress?
      and what is the nature of its progress?
    • Kuhn doesn’t see a uniform ‘progression’ of science.
      If there is a uniform progression then only within a paradigm.
      He questions the rationality of science
    • The Copernican revolution
    • Geocentrism, the Aristotelian worldview
      Copernicus and the heliocentric worldview
      Galileo Galilei and proof
      As an effect of the Copernican revolution man ceased to be the center of the universe
    • The inquisition forced Galileo to renounce his findings
    • Paul Feyerabend
    • The enemy of science
      Feyerabend thought Kuhn was killing creativity with normal science
      There is no such thing as rational scientific progress, not even within a paradigm.
    • Back to Galileo
    • Against empirical evidence
      Challenging observation rather than following it.
      Galileo not only changed his worldview, but also the way to measure it
      If the earth moves why do things fall in a straight line?
    • Other observers tested Galileo’s telescope and did not see the same
      His telescopic observations differ from normal observations
    • Even worse, Galileo’s observations weren’t accurate
      the sketches he made of the moon do not really resemble the moon at all.
    • Galileo and Copernicus worked contra-inductive.
      If we followed empirical research, then we would still be stuck with the Aristotelian view.
    • Inquisition and modern science
      Feyerabend compares modern science with the inquisition
      The inquisition only tried to defend the prevalent worldview
      He compares this with creationism
    • ?
      Galileo succeeded despite, not thanks to rationality and induction.
      What really happened?
      Creativity and social factors, public relations so to say
      What to do: go against the rules, whenever possible.
    • Theoretical anarchism
      Anything goes
    • ImreLakatos
    • Lakatos considered Kuhn’s idea’s as destructive
      He wanted to save the rationality of science
      He proposes: research programs
      He wanted back to Poppers rationality of science
    • Research programs
      A research program is like a paradigm.
      The difference is that their can be more than one at the same time.
      Every program has a hardcore and a protective belt
    • Adjusting Popper
      Falsification forbids all ad hoc adjustment
      Lakatos calls this naïve falsification
      He suggest that the research programs should get the time to develop
      Rationality in the long run
    • Global Warming
    • Practical example: Global warming
      Is science being driven by social motives?
      If so: isn’t that unscientific?
      Is this a bad thing?
      Is there room for alternatives?
      Should governments act upon the global warming hypothesis?
      Give your own opinion on this debate