Unit 3. Anything goes?


Published on

Unit 3. Anything goes? [Philosophy of Science]

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Unit 3. Anything goes?

  1. 1. Unit 3Revolutions and relativism<br />
  2. 2. So far:<br />Logical positivism and confirmation<br />Critical rationalism (Popper) and falsification<br />Today: sociology of science<br />
  3. 3. In the sixties and seventies of the last century a new generation of philosophers of science emerged. <br />Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996) <br />Paul Feyerabend (1924-1994)<br />ImreLakatos (1922-1974)<br />
  4. 4. Thomas Kuhn<br />
  5. 5. Popper was describing the way science ought to work (normative)<br />Thomas Kuhn was interested in the way science actually works (descriptive)<br />
  6. 6. Popper and the logical positivist made a rational reconstruction<br />They focus on the reasons not the causes for scientific behavior. <br />
  7. 7. Take a game of chess<br /><ul><li> The rules of the game are internal to the game
  8. 8. Your motives four playing a game of chess are however external</li></li></ul><li>Conceptual frameworks<br />Facts do not really speak for themselves<br />Facts are part of a conceptual framework<br />Kuhn calls such a conceptual framework a paradigm<br />
  9. 9. paradigms<br />
  10. 10.
  11. 11. The pre-paradigmatic period<br />The pre-paradigmatic period is the period before there is a paradigm.<br />There is confusion among ‘scientists’ because they do not share a common paradigm.<br />Scientist think differently about what facts are and what are important problems.<br />
  12. 12.
  13. 13. Normal science as puzzle solving<br /><ul><li>Normal science begins when a scientist comes up with a new and interesting view, a model.
  14. 14. After a paradigm is established, researchers can agree on the problems and facts.</li></li></ul><li>Anomalies<br />If an anomaly occurs it is not the problem of the paradigm but of the scientist. <br />Ad hoc adjustments<br />No falsification: Scientist are dogmatic<br />
  15. 15.
  16. 16. Crisis<br />If to much anomalies occur there is a crises<br />Confusion returns, and the old paradigm starts to crumble.<br />Two solutions:<br />The issues are resolved<br />A new paradigm is found, revolution. <br />
  17. 17.
  18. 18. Revolution<br />New (young) scientist come up with a fresh idea.<br />A paradigmatic shift occurs (Gestalt-switch), a change of worldview. <br />
  19. 19. Paradigms are incommensurable<br />
  20. 20. Assignment<br />Think of three examples you consider paradigm shifts<br />These examples could about science, society, or your own life<br />Present it in front of the group<br />
  21. 21. progress<br /> why does science progress?<br /> how does it progress?<br /> and what is the nature of its progress?<br />
  22. 22. Kuhn doesn’t see a uniform ‘progression’ of science. <br />If there is a uniform progression then only within a paradigm.<br />He questions the rationality of science<br />
  23. 23. The Copernican revolution<br />
  24. 24. Geocentrism, the Aristotelian worldview<br />Copernicus and the heliocentric worldview<br />Galileo Galilei and proof<br />As an effect of the Copernican revolution man ceased to be the center of the universe<br />
  25. 25. The inquisition forced Galileo to renounce his findings<br />
  26. 26.
  27. 27. Paul Feyerabend<br />
  28. 28. The enemy of science<br />Feyerabend thought Kuhn was killing creativity with normal science<br />There is no such thing as rational scientific progress, not even within a paradigm.<br />
  29. 29. Back to Galileo<br />
  30. 30. Against empirical evidence<br />Challenging observation rather than following it. <br />Galileo not only changed his worldview, but also the way to measure it<br />If the earth moves why do things fall in a straight line?<br />
  31. 31. Other observers tested Galileo’s telescope and did not see the same<br />His telescopic observations differ from normal observations <br />
  32. 32. Even worse, Galileo’s observations weren’t accurate<br />the sketches he made of the moon do not really resemble the moon at all.<br />
  33. 33. Galileo and Copernicus worked contra-inductive.<br />If we followed empirical research, then we would still be stuck with the Aristotelian view.<br />
  34. 34. Inquisition and modern science<br />Feyerabend compares modern science with the inquisition<br />The inquisition only tried to defend the prevalent worldview<br />He compares this with creationism<br />
  35. 35. ?<br />Galileo succeeded despite, not thanks to rationality and induction.<br />What really happened? <br />Creativity and social factors, public relations so to say<br />What to do: go against the rules, whenever possible.<br />
  36. 36. Theoretical anarchism<br />Anything goes<br />
  37. 37. ImreLakatos<br />
  38. 38. Lakatos considered Kuhn’s idea’s as destructive<br />He wanted to save the rationality of science<br />He proposes: research programs<br />He wanted back to Poppers rationality of science<br />
  39. 39. Research programs<br />A research program is like a paradigm.<br />The difference is that their can be more than one at the same time.<br />Every program has a hardcore and a protective belt<br />
  40. 40. Adjusting Popper<br />Falsification forbids all ad hoc adjustment<br />Lakatos calls this naïve falsification<br />He suggest that the research programs should get the time to develop<br />Rationality in the long run<br />
  41. 41. Global Warming<br />
  42. 42. Practical example: Global warming<br />Is science being driven by social motives?<br />If so: isn’t that unscientific?<br />Is this a bad thing?<br />Is there room for alternatives?<br />Should governments act upon the global warming hypothesis?<br />Give your own opinion on this debate<br />