This document provides an overview of the contents of a CD produced by Dialogue Education for use by teachers in the classroom. It contains 17 pages covering various topics in the philosophy of science like definitions of key terms, theories of demarcation, induction, and the theory-dependence of observation. The CD also includes videos, games, and a bibliography for further reading. It is intended solely for use by schools that have purchased the CD from Dialogue Education.
What is science? Science, pseudoscience, non-scienceDennis Miller
Science plays a fundamental role in modern society. But what exactly is science? In philosophy this question is known as the demarcation problem (Popper, Kuhn, Laudan and others).
What is science? Science, pseudoscience, non-scienceDennis Miller
Science plays a fundamental role in modern society. But what exactly is science? In philosophy this question is known as the demarcation problem (Popper, Kuhn, Laudan and others).
Evolutionary epistemology versus faith and justified true belief: Does scien...William Hall
This presentation explores the basis for scientific rationality by testing our claims about the world against nature as described by Karl Popper's evolutionary epistemology versus accepting claims based on justified true belief. The presentation is particularly concerned to show the philosophical problems with religious fundamentalism.
Feyerabend, Pluralism and Progress in Science in Against Method 1993 and the ...ijtsrd
The epistemological problem associated with Karl Paul Feyerabend as a philosopher of Science resides beneath the fact that different critics of his works give divers interpretations of them. His works and the accounts they present have no common structure. This plurality and conflictual interpretations of him makes it difficult, if not impossible to pin him to a particular tradition in the Philosophy of Science. For this reason, while some of his critics consider him to be a relativist, to some, he is a Dadaist, a confusionist and an anarchist, yet others think of Feyerabend as the worst enemy of Science. This diversity of interpretation of Feyerabend, in my opinion, only goes to reassure us of our reading of him. That is, Feyerabend is closely associated with pluralism than anything else. My aim, in this paper is thus propose a thesis and attempt a justification. The thesis is that my reading of Against Method, 1993 and The Tyranny of Science, 2011 , justifies the thesis above. This perspective, unlike the others, is more holistic and inclusive. Without agreeing with his poists about science and its method, I contend that his pluralist claims in the philosophy of science art not hard to find. My examples stem, first, from the diversity of interpretations, and the conflicting views of his critics. Second, I consider the titles of the two works under consideration, to illustrate his criticism of the scientism and Methodism of Modern Science on the one hand, and his defence of plurality of methods and theories. Finally, I conclude that contrarily to critics who label him the worst enemy of science, anarchist or a confusionist, I think that, Feyerabend exaggerated his criticism of Modern Science and his defence of pluralism when he claimed to see no difference between science, myths and religion. However, I go further to contend that this comparison does not eclipse his pluralist position. It rather exaggerates it. That is why I term him, an extreme pluralist to say the least. Nyuykongi John Paul ""Feyerabend, Pluralism and Progress in Science in Against Method (1993) and the Tyranny of Science (2011)"" Published in International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (ijtsrd), ISSN: 2456-6470, Volume-4 | Issue-2 , February 2020,
URL: https://www.ijtsrd.com/papers/ijtsrd30060.pdf
Paper Url : https://www.ijtsrd.com/humanities-and-the-arts/education/30060/feyerabend-pluralism-and-progress-in-science-in-against-method-1993-and-the-tyranny-of-science-2011/nyuykongi-john-paul
The contemporary philosophy of science (epistemology) featuring K.Popper, T.Kuhn, I.Lakatos, P.Feyerabend, Hanson among others, has exercised a decisive critique to the dominant views of the positivist and neo-positivist model of knowledge and has in fact undermined its credibility.
Life, Knowledge and Natural Selection ― How life (scientifically) designs its...William Hall
This presentation presents a biologically-based theory of knowledge and life explaining the similarities between evolution by natural selection and the scientific methodology. The theory is based on Karl Popper's evolutionary epistemology in the context of Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela's autopoietic theory of life. The theory is applied to understanding the past evolution of humans to an attempt to understand our future evolution.
The shaky foundations of science slides - James FodorAdam Ford
See: http://2014.scifuture.org/abstract-the-shaky-foundations-of-science-an-overview-of-the-big-issues-james-fodor/ - Many people think about science in a fairly simplistic way: collect evidence, formulate a theory, test the theory. By this method, it is claimed, science can achieve objective, rational knowledge about the workings of reality. In this presentation I will question the validity of this understanding of science. I will consider some of the key controversies in philosophy of science, including the problem of induction, the theory-ladenness of observation, the nature of scientific explanation, theory choice, and scientific realism, giving an overview of some of the main questions and arguments from major thinkers like Popper, Quine, Kuhn, Hempel, and Feyerabend. I will argue that philosophy of science paints a much richer and messier picture of the relationship between science and truth than many people commonly imagine, and that a familiarity with the key issues in the philosophy of science is vital for a proper understanding of the power and limits of scientific thinking.
Evolutionary epistemology versus faith and justified true belief: Does scien...William Hall
This presentation explores the basis for scientific rationality by testing our claims about the world against nature as described by Karl Popper's evolutionary epistemology versus accepting claims based on justified true belief. The presentation is particularly concerned to show the philosophical problems with religious fundamentalism.
Feyerabend, Pluralism and Progress in Science in Against Method 1993 and the ...ijtsrd
The epistemological problem associated with Karl Paul Feyerabend as a philosopher of Science resides beneath the fact that different critics of his works give divers interpretations of them. His works and the accounts they present have no common structure. This plurality and conflictual interpretations of him makes it difficult, if not impossible to pin him to a particular tradition in the Philosophy of Science. For this reason, while some of his critics consider him to be a relativist, to some, he is a Dadaist, a confusionist and an anarchist, yet others think of Feyerabend as the worst enemy of Science. This diversity of interpretation of Feyerabend, in my opinion, only goes to reassure us of our reading of him. That is, Feyerabend is closely associated with pluralism than anything else. My aim, in this paper is thus propose a thesis and attempt a justification. The thesis is that my reading of Against Method, 1993 and The Tyranny of Science, 2011 , justifies the thesis above. This perspective, unlike the others, is more holistic and inclusive. Without agreeing with his poists about science and its method, I contend that his pluralist claims in the philosophy of science art not hard to find. My examples stem, first, from the diversity of interpretations, and the conflicting views of his critics. Second, I consider the titles of the two works under consideration, to illustrate his criticism of the scientism and Methodism of Modern Science on the one hand, and his defence of plurality of methods and theories. Finally, I conclude that contrarily to critics who label him the worst enemy of science, anarchist or a confusionist, I think that, Feyerabend exaggerated his criticism of Modern Science and his defence of pluralism when he claimed to see no difference between science, myths and religion. However, I go further to contend that this comparison does not eclipse his pluralist position. It rather exaggerates it. That is why I term him, an extreme pluralist to say the least. Nyuykongi John Paul ""Feyerabend, Pluralism and Progress in Science in Against Method (1993) and the Tyranny of Science (2011)"" Published in International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (ijtsrd), ISSN: 2456-6470, Volume-4 | Issue-2 , February 2020,
URL: https://www.ijtsrd.com/papers/ijtsrd30060.pdf
Paper Url : https://www.ijtsrd.com/humanities-and-the-arts/education/30060/feyerabend-pluralism-and-progress-in-science-in-against-method-1993-and-the-tyranny-of-science-2011/nyuykongi-john-paul
The contemporary philosophy of science (epistemology) featuring K.Popper, T.Kuhn, I.Lakatos, P.Feyerabend, Hanson among others, has exercised a decisive critique to the dominant views of the positivist and neo-positivist model of knowledge and has in fact undermined its credibility.
Life, Knowledge and Natural Selection ― How life (scientifically) designs its...William Hall
This presentation presents a biologically-based theory of knowledge and life explaining the similarities between evolution by natural selection and the scientific methodology. The theory is based on Karl Popper's evolutionary epistemology in the context of Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela's autopoietic theory of life. The theory is applied to understanding the past evolution of humans to an attempt to understand our future evolution.
The shaky foundations of science slides - James FodorAdam Ford
See: http://2014.scifuture.org/abstract-the-shaky-foundations-of-science-an-overview-of-the-big-issues-james-fodor/ - Many people think about science in a fairly simplistic way: collect evidence, formulate a theory, test the theory. By this method, it is claimed, science can achieve objective, rational knowledge about the workings of reality. In this presentation I will question the validity of this understanding of science. I will consider some of the key controversies in philosophy of science, including the problem of induction, the theory-ladenness of observation, the nature of scientific explanation, theory choice, and scientific realism, giving an overview of some of the main questions and arguments from major thinkers like Popper, Quine, Kuhn, Hempel, and Feyerabend. I will argue that philosophy of science paints a much richer and messier picture of the relationship between science and truth than many people commonly imagine, and that a familiarity with the key issues in the philosophy of science is vital for a proper understanding of the power and limits of scientific thinking.
Psychology, Science, and Pseudoscience: Class #03 (Nature of Science)Brian Hughes
In short: As the world has figured out ways of sorting reliable information from unreliable information, so philosophy has had to figure out ways of demarcating science from 'pseudo-'science.
Big Data Business InnovationsBased on Infinity and Permanence
1. The Computer Newspaper (e.g. Craigslist)
2. Infinite Spreadsheet (IS) Decision Center
(Big Data are the inputs and the outputs of IS.)
3. Universal Permanent Number (UPN)
4. UPN Self-Checkout
5. UPN Machine Translation
6. UPN Search
7. UPN DNA Sequencing
8. Universal Permanent Device
9. Self-generating Neural Network (deep AI)
10. Self-manufactured General-Purpose Robot
(Adept, DAI unsuccessful competing w/ humans)
Research methodology (Philosophies and paradigms) in ArabicAmgad Badewi
Explaining research philosophies and paradigms. Explaining the ontology, epistemology and of different research paradigms. In addition, explaining how to innovate in research using pragmatic research. Finally, explaining Grounded Theory at the end of it.
1. TEN MYTHS OF SCIENCE REEXAMINING WHAT WE THINK WE KNOW...W. .docxambersalomon88660
1. TEN MYTHS OF SCIENCE: REEXAMINING WHAT WE THINK WE KNOW...
W. McComas 1996
This article addresses and attempts to refute several of the most widespread and enduring misconceptions held by students regarding the enterprise of science. The ten myths discussed include the common notions that theories become laws, that hypotheses are best characterized as educated guesses, and that there is a commonly-applied scientific method. In addition, the article includes discussion of other incorrect ideas such as the view that evidence leads to sure knowledge, that science and its methods provide absolute proof, and that science is not a creative endeavor. Finally, the myths that scientists are objective, that experiments are the sole route to scientific knowledge and that scientific conclusions are continually reviewed conclude this presentation. The paper ends with a plea that instruction in and opportunities to experience the nature of science are vital in preservice and inservice teacher education programs to help unseat the myths of science.
Myths are typically defined as traditional views, fables, legends or stories. As such, myths can be entertaining and even educational since they help people make sense of the world. In fact, the explanatory role of myths most likely accounts for their development, spread and persistence. However, when fact and fiction blur, myths lose their entertainment value and serve only to block full understanding. Such is the case with the myths of science.
Scholar Joseph Campbell (1968) has proposed that the similarity among many folk myths worldwide is due to a subconscious link between all peoples, but no such link can explain the myths of science. Misconceptions about science are most likely due to the lack of philosophy of science content in teacher education programs, the failure of such programs to provide and require authentic science experiences for preservice teachers and the generally shallow treatment of the nature of science in the precollege textbooks to which teachers might turn for guidance.
As Steven Jay Gould points out in The Case of the Creeping Fox Terrier Clone (1988), science textbook writers are among the most egregious purveyors of myth and inaccuracy. The fox terrier mentioned in the title refers to the classic comparison used to express the size of the dawn horse, the tiny precursor to the modem horse. This comparison is unfortunate for two reasons. Not only was this horse ancestor much bigger than a fox terrier, but the fox terrier breed of dog is virtually unknown to American students. The major criticism leveled by Gould is that once this comparison took hold, no one bothered to check its validity or utility. Through time, one author after another simply repeated the inept comparison and continued a tradition that has made many science texts virtual clones of each other on this and countless other points.
In an attempt to provide a more realistic view of science and point out issues o.
RelativismEpistemic RelativismWe have now presented a philos.docxcarlt4
Relativism
Epistemic Relativism
We have now presented a philosophical argument behind the whole basis of accepted scientific truth.
Let's introduce another philosophical term important in that dabate:
Epistemic Relativism: the position that knowledge is valid only relatively to a specific context, society, culture or individual.
In the following video, Duncan Pritchard, from the University of Edinburgh introduces the concept of Epistemic Relativism. You will learn about the well-known Bellarmine–Galileo controversy about the validity of Ptolemy’s geocentric system vs Copernicus’s heliocentric system, This historical episode is well documented, and it has been the battleground of important discussions about what epistemologists call epistemic relativism, namely the view that norms of reasoning and justification for our knowledge claims seem to be relative.
From "The Little Thinker‘s Blog“
This historical example illustrates the epistemic relativist’s ‘no neutral ground’ argument, and the difficulty of identifying a common ground or a common measure to assess and evaluate knowledge claims in their historical and social context.
** Content from Online Course: Philosophy and the Sciences: Introduction to the Philosophy of Physical Sciences by The University of Edinburgh
https://youtu.be/MYnZgJeOqqg
Popper's Falsification
From inductivism to Popper’s falsification
From: Philosophy and the Science for Everyone by Michela Massimi. ISBN: 9781138785434
Karl Popper
Philosophers of science are interested in understanding the nature of scientific knowledge and its distinctive features. For a very long time, they strove to find what they thought might be the distinctive method of science, the method that would allow scientists to make informed decisions about what counts as a scientific theory.
The importance of demarcating good science from pseudo-science is neither otiose nor a mere philosophical exercise. It is at the very heart of social policy, when decisions are taken at the governmental level about how to spend taxpayers’ money.
Karl Popper (28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994) was, undoubtedly, one of the most influential philosophers of the early twentieth century to have contributed to the debate about demarcating good science from pseudo-science. In this section we very briefly review some of his seminal ideas.
Popper’s battleground was the social sciences. At the beginning of the twentieth century, in the German-speaking world, a lively debate took place between the so-called Naturwissenschaften (the natural sciences, including mathematics, physics, and chemistry) and the Geisteswissenschaften (the human sciences, including psychology and the emergent psychoanalysis), and whether the latter could rise to the status of proper sciences on a par with the natural sciences.
This is the historical context in which Popper began his philosophical reflections in the 1920s. Popper’s reflections were influenced by the Vienna Circle, a group of young int.
Essay about Sci-fI Films
Science Essay
Scientific Theory Essay
Evolution of Science Essay
My Love For Science
Essay about Life Science
My Passion For Science
Environmental Science Essay
Essay on Forensic Science
What Is Earth Science? Essay
Science v Pseudoscience: What’s the Difference? - Kevin KorbAdam Ford
Science has a certain common core, especially a reliance on empirical methods of assessing hypotheses. Pseudosciences have little in common but their negation: they are not science.
They reject meaningful empirical assessment in some way or another. Popper proposed a clear demarcation criterion for Science v Rubbish: Falsifiability. However, his criterion has not stood the test of time. There are no definitive arguments against any pseudoscience, any more than against extreme skepticism in general, but there are clear indicators of phoniness.
Post: http://www.scifuture.org/science-vs-pseudoscience
The Good News, newsletter for June 2024 is hereNoHo FUMC
Our monthly newsletter is available to read online. We hope you will join us each Sunday in person for our worship service. Make sure to subscribe and follow us on YouTube and social media.
2 Peter 3: Because some scriptures are hard to understand and some will force them to say things God never intended, Peter warns us to take care.
https://youtu.be/nV4kGHFsEHw
Exploring the Mindfulness Understanding Its Benefits.pptxMartaLoveguard
Slide 1: Title: Exploring the Mindfulness: Understanding Its Benefits
Slide 2: Introduction to Mindfulness
Mindfulness, defined as the conscious, non-judgmental observation of the present moment, has deep roots in Buddhist meditation practice but has gained significant popularity in the Western world in recent years. In today's society, filled with distractions and constant stimuli, mindfulness offers a valuable tool for regaining inner peace and reconnecting with our true selves. By cultivating mindfulness, we can develop a heightened awareness of our thoughts, feelings, and surroundings, leading to a greater sense of clarity and presence in our daily lives.
Slide 3: Benefits of Mindfulness for Mental Well-being
Practicing mindfulness can help reduce stress and anxiety levels, improving overall quality of life.
Mindfulness increases awareness of our emotions and teaches us to manage them better, leading to improved mood.
Regular mindfulness practice can improve our ability to concentrate and focus our attention on the present moment.
Slide 4: Benefits of Mindfulness for Physical Health
Research has shown that practicing mindfulness can contribute to lowering blood pressure, which is beneficial for heart health.
Regular meditation and mindfulness practice can strengthen the immune system, aiding the body in fighting infections.
Mindfulness may help reduce the risk of chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes and obesity by reducing stress and improving overall lifestyle habits.
Slide 5: Impact of Mindfulness on Relationships
Mindfulness can help us better understand others and improve communication, leading to healthier relationships.
By focusing on the present moment and being fully attentive, mindfulness helps build stronger and more authentic connections with others.
Mindfulness teaches us how to be present for others in difficult times, leading to increased compassion and understanding.
Slide 6: Mindfulness Techniques and Practices
Focusing on the breath and mindful breathing can be a simple way to enter a state of mindfulness.
Body scan meditation involves focusing on different parts of the body, paying attention to any sensations and feelings.
Practicing mindful walking and eating involves consciously focusing on each step or bite, with full attention to sensory experiences.
Slide 7: Incorporating Mindfulness into Daily Life
You can practice mindfulness in everyday activities such as washing dishes or taking a walk in the park.
Adding mindfulness practice to daily routines can help increase awareness and presence.
Mindfulness helps us become more aware of our needs and better manage our time, leading to balance and harmony in life.
Slide 8: Summary: Embracing Mindfulness for Full Living
Mindfulness can bring numerous benefits for physical and mental health.
Regular mindfulness practice can help achieve a fuller and more satisfying life.
Mindfulness has the power to change our perspective and way of perceiving the world, leading to deeper se
Why is this So? ~ Do Seek to KNOW (English & Chinese).pptxOH TEIK BIN
A PowerPoint Presentation based on the Dhamma teaching of Kamma-Vipaka (Intentional Actions-Ripening Effects).
A Presentation for developing morality, concentration and wisdom and to spur us to practice the Dhamma diligently.
The texts are in English and Chinese.
Discover various methods for clearing negative entities from your space and spirit, including energy clearing techniques, spiritual rituals, and professional assistance. Gain practical knowledge on how to implement these techniques to restore peace and harmony. For more information visit here: https://www.reikihealingdistance.com/negative-entity-removal/
In Jude 17-23 Jude shifts from piling up examples of false teachers from the Old Testament to a series of practical exhortations that flow from apostolic instruction. He preserves for us what may well have been part of the apostolic catechism for the first generation of Christ-followers. In these instructions Jude exhorts the believer to deal with 3 different groups of people: scoffers who are "devoid of the Spirit", believers who have come under the influence of scoffers and believers who are so entrenched in false teaching that they need rescue and pose some real spiritual risk for the rescuer. In all of this Jude emphasizes Jesus' call to rescue straying sheep, leaving the 99 safely behind and pursuing the 1.
The Chakra System in our body - A Portal to Interdimensional Consciousness.pptxBharat Technology
each chakra is studied in greater detail, several steps have been included to
strengthen your personal intention to open each chakra more fully. These are designed
to draw forth the highest benefit for your spiritual growth.
The Book of Joshua is the sixth book in the Hebrew Bible and the Old Testament, and is the first book of the Deuteronomistic history, the story of Israel from the conquest of Canaan to the Babylonian exile.
1. Dialogue Education
2009
1
THIS CD HAS BEEN PRODUCED FOR TEACHERS TO USE IN THE CLASSROOM. IT IS A CONDITION OF
THE USE OF THIS CD THAT IT BE USED ONLY BY THE PEOPLE FROM SCHOOLS THAT HAVE
PURCHASED THE CD ROM FROM DIALOGUE EDUCATION. (THIS DOES NOT PROHIBIT ITS USE ON A
SCHOOL’S INTRANET).
2. Page 3 - Fling the Teacher- Intro to Philosophy of Science
Page 4 - Video Presentation on Science Religion and the Cosmos
Pages 5 to 6 - Definitions of terms
Page 7 - Demarcation
Page 8 – Why Study Philosophy of Science?
Pages 9 –15 The central questions in science.
Page 16 - Induction
Page 17 – 19 Coherentism
Page 20 - 21 Ockhams Razor –
Pages 23 to 28 - Theory-dependence of observation
Pages 31 The Scientific Method
Pages 32 - Video Interview with John Polkinghorne
Pages 33 to 34 - Bibliography
2
3. Click on the image above for a game of
“Fling the Teacher”. Try playing the game
with your students at the start and the end
of the unit. Make sure you have started the
slide show and are connected to the
internet.
3
4. Click on the
image to the
right. You will
need to be
connected to
the internet to
view this
presentation.
Enlarge to full
screen
4
5. The philosophy of science is concerned with
the assumptions, foundations, and
implications of science.
5
6. Philosophy of science focuses on metaphysical,
epistemic and semantic aspects of science.
Ethical issues such as bioethics and scientific
misconduct are usually considered ethics or
science studies rather than philosophy of
science.
6
7. Demarcation
Karl Popper contended that the central question in
the philosophy of science was distinguishing science
from non-science.Early attempts by the logical
positivists grounded science in observation while non-
science (e.g. metaphysics) was non-observational and
hence nonsense. Popper claimed that the central
feature of science was that science aims at falsifiable
claims (i.e. claims that can be proven false, at least
in principle).No single unified account of the
difference between science and non-science has been
widely accepted by philosophers, and some regard
the problem as unsolvable or uninteresting.
7
8. This problem has taken centre stage in the
debate regarding evolution and intelligent
design. Many opponents of intelligent design
claim that it does not meet the criteria of
science and should thus not be treated on
equal footing as evolution. Those who defend
intelligent design either defend the view as
meeting the criteria of science or challenge
the coherence of this distinction.
8
9. Two central questions about science are (1) what are the
aims of science and (2) how ought one to interpret the
results of science? Scientific realists claim that science
aims at truth and that one ought to regard scientific
theories as true, approximately true, or likely true.
Conversely, a scientific antirealist or instrumentalist
argues that science does not aim (or at least does not
succeed) at truth and that we should not regard
scientific theories as true. Some antirealists claim that
scientific theories aim at being instrumentally useful and
should only be regarded as useful, but not true,
descriptions of the world.More radical antirealists, like
Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend, have argued that
scientific theories do not even succeed at this goal, and
that later, more accurate scientific theories are not
"typically approximately true" as Popper contended.
9
10. Realists often point to the success of recent
scientific theories as evidence for the truth
(or near truth) of our current theories.
Antirealists point to either the history of
science,epistemic morals, the success of
false modelling assumptions, or widely
termed postmodern criticisms of objectivity
as evidence against scientific realisms. Some
antirealists attempt to explain the success of
our theories without reference to truthwhile
others deny that our current scientific
theories are successful at all.[
10
11. The most powerful statements in science are
those with the widest applicability. Newton's
Third Law — "for every action there is an
opposite and equal reaction" — is a powerful
statement because it applies to every action,
anywhere, and at any time.
11
12. But it is not possible for scientists to have
tested every incidence of an action, and
found a reaction. How is it, then, that they
can assert that the Third Law is in some
sense true? They have, of course, tested
many, many actions, and in each one have
been able to find the corresponding reaction.
But can we be sure that the next time we
test the Third Law, it will be found to hold
true?
12
13. Induction
One solution to this problem is to rely on the
notion of induction. Inductive reasoning
maintains that if a situation holds in all
observed cases, then the situation holds in
all cases. So, after completing a series of
experiments that support the Third Law, one
is justified in maintaining that the Law holds
in all cases.
13
14. Explaining why induction commonly works has
been somewhat problematic. One cannot use
deduction, the usual process of moving
logically from premise to conclusion, because
there is simply no syllogism that will allow such
a move. No matter how many times 17th
century biologists observed white swans, and
in how many different locations, there is no
deductive path that can lead them to the
conclusion that all swans are white. This is just
as well, since, as it turned out, that conclusion
would have been wrong. Similarly, it is at least
possible that an observation will be made
tomorrow that shows an occasion in which an
action is not accompanied by a reaction; the
same is true of any scientific law.
14
15. One answer has been to conceive of a
different form of rational argument, one that
does not rely on deduction. Deduction allows
one to formulate a specific truth from a
general truth: all crows are black; this is a
crow; therefore this is black. Induction
somehow allows one to formulate a general
truth from some series of specific
observations: this is a crow and it is black;
that is a crow and it is black; therefore all
crows are black.
15
16. The problem of induction is one of
considerable debate and importance in the
philosophy of science: is induction indeed
justified, and if so, how?
16
17. Coherentism & Foundationalism
Induction attempts to justify scientific
statements by reference to other specific
scientific statements. It must avoid the problem
of the criterion, in which any justification must
in turn be justified, resulting in an infinite
regress. The regress argument has been used to
justify one way out of the infinite regress,
foundationalism. Foundationalism claims that
there are some basic statements that do not
require justification. Both induction and
falsification are forms of foundationalism in that
they rely on basic statements that derive
directly from immediate sensory experience.
17
18. The way in which basic statements are
derived from observation complicates the
problem. Observation is a cognitive act; that
is, it relies on our existing understanding,
our set of beliefs. An observation of a transit
of Venus requires a huge range of auxiliary
beliefs, such as those that describe the
optics of telescopes, the mechanics of the
telescope mount, and an understanding of
celestial mechanics. At first sight, the
observation does not appear to be 'basic'.
18
19. Coherentism offers an alternative by claiming
that statements can be justified by their being a
part of a coherent system. In the case of
science, the system is usually taken to be the
complete set of beliefs of an individual scientist
or, more broadly, of the community of scientists.
W. V. Quine argued for a Coherentist approach
to science, as does E O Wilson, though he uses
the term consilience (notably in his book of that
name). An observation of a transit of Venus is
justified by its being coherent with our beliefs
about optics, telescope mounts and celestial
mechanics. Where this observation is at odds
with one of these auxiliary beliefs, an
adjustment in the system will be required to
remove the contradiction..
19
20. Ockham's razor
“ William of Ockham (c. 1295–1349) … is
remembered as an influential nominalist, but his
popular fame as a great logician rests chiefly on
the maxim known as Ockham's razor: Entia non
sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. No
doubt this represents correctly the general
tendency of his philosophy, but it has not so far
been found in any of his writings. His nearest
pronouncement seems to be Numquam ponenda
est pluralitas sine necessitate, which occurs in
his theological work on the Sentences of Peter
Lombard (Super Quattuor Libros Sententiarum
(ed. Lugd., 1495), i, dist. 27, qu. 2, K). In his
Summa Totius Logicae, i. 12, Ockham cites the
principle of economy, Frustra fit per plura quod
potest fieri per pauciora. (Kneale and Kneale,
1962, p. 243) 20
21. The practice of scientific inquiry typically
involves a number of heuristic principles that
serve as rules of thumb for guiding the work.
Prominent among these are the principles of
conceptual economy or theoretical
parsimony that are customarily placed under
the rubric of Ockham's razor, named after
the 14th century Franciscan friar William of
Ockham who is credited with giving the
maxim many pithy expressions, not all of
which have yet been found among his extant
works.
21
22. The motto is most commonly cited in the form
"entities should not be multiplied beyond
necessity", generally taken to suggest that the
simplest explanation tends to be the correct one.
As interpreted in contemporary scientific practice,
it advises opting for the simplest theory among a
set of competing theories that have a comparable
explanatory power, discarding assumptions that do
not improve the explanation. The "other things
being equal" clause is a critical qualification, which
rather severely limits the utility of Ockham's razor
in real practice, as theorists rarely if ever find
themselves presented with competent theories of
exactly equal explanatory adequacy.
22
23. Theory-dependence of observation
A scientific method depends on
objective observation in defining
the subject under investigation,
gaining information about its
behaviour and in performing
experiments. However, most
observations are theory-laden –
that is, they depend in part on an
underlying theory that is used to
frame the observations.
23
24. Observation involves perception as well as a cognitive
process. That is, one does not make an observation
passively, but is actively involved in distinguishing the
thing being observed from surrounding sensory data.
Therefore, observations depend on some underlying
understanding of the way in which the world functions,
and that understanding may influence what is perceived,
noticed, or deemed worthy of consideration. More
importantly, most scientific observation must be done
within a theoretical context in order to be useful. For
example, when one observes a measured increase in
temperature, that observation is based on assumptions
about the nature of temperature and measurement, as
well as assumptions about how the thermometer that is
used to measure the temperature functions. Such
assumptions are necessary in order to obtain
scientifically useful observations (such as, "the
temperature increased by two degrees"), but they make
the observations dependent on these assumptions.
24
25. Empirical observation is used to determine the
acceptability of some hypothesis within a theory.
When someone claims to have made an
observation, it is reasonable to ask them to justify
their claim. Such a justification must make
reference to the theory – operational definitions
and hypotheses – in which the observation is
embedded. That is, the observation is framed in
terms of the theory that also contains the
hypothesis it is meant to verify or falsify (though
of course the observation should not be based on
an assumption of the truth or falsity of the
hypothesis being tested). This means that the
observation cannot serve as an entirely neutral
arbiter between competing hypotheses, but can
only arbitrate between the hypotheses within the
context of the underlying theory.
25
26. Thomas Kuhn denied that it is ever possible to isolate
the hypothesis being tested from the influence of the
theory in which the observations are grounded. He
argued that observations always rely on a specific
paradigm, and that it is not possible to evaluate
competing paradigms independently. By "paradigm"
he meant, essentially, a logically consistent "portrait"
of the world, one that involves no logical
contradictions and that is consistent with
observations that are made from the point of view of
this paradigm. More than one such logically
consistent construct can paint a usable likeness of
the world, but there is no common ground from
which to pit two against each other, theory against
theory. Neither is a standard by which the other can
be judged. Instead, the question is which "portrait" is
judged by some set of people to promise the most in
terms of scientific “puzzle solving”.
26
27. For Kuhn, the choice of paradigm was sustained by,
but not ultimately determined by, logical processes.
The individual's choice between paradigms involves
setting two or more “portraits" against the world and
deciding which likeness is most promising. In the case
of a general acceptance of one paradigm or another,
Kuhn believed that it represented the consensus of the
community of scientists. Acceptance or rejection of
some paradigm is, he argued, a social process as
much as a logical process. Kuhn's position, however, is
not one of relativism.[
27
28. According to Kuhn, a paradigm shift will occur
when a significant number of observational
anomalies in the old paradigm have made the new
paradigm more useful. That is, the choice of a new
paradigm is based on observations, even though
those observations are made against the
background of the old paradigm. A new paradigm
is chosen because it does a better job of solving
scientific problems than the old one.
28
29. That observation is embedded in theory does
not mean that observations are irrelevant to
science. Scientific understanding derives
from observation, but the acceptance of
scientific statements is dependent on the
related theoretical background or paradigm
as well as on observation. Coherentism,
skepticism, and foundationalism are
alternatives for dealing with the difficulty of
grounding scientific theories in something
more than observations.
29
30. Paul Feyerabend argued that no description of
scientific method could possibly be broad enough to
encompass all the approaches and methods used
by scientists. Feyerabend objected to prescriptive
scientific method on the grounds that any such
method would stifle and cramp scientific progress.
Feyerabend claimed, "the only principle that does
not inhibit progress is: anything goes.“ However
there have been many opponents to his theory.
Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont wrote the essay
"Feyerabend: Anything Goes" about his belief that
science is of little use to society.
30
31. The essential elements of a
scientific method are:
•Problem (observations, definitions,
and measurements of the subject of
inquiry)
•Procedure (theoretical,
hypothetical explanations of
observations and measurements of
the subject)
•Observation from data (reasoning
including logical deduction from the
hypothesis or theory)
•Conclusions (tests of all of the
above) 31
32. Click on the
image to the
right. You will
need to be
connected to
the internet to
view this
presentation.
Enlarge to full
screen
32
33. Agassi, J., (1975), Science in Flux, Reidel, Dordrecht.
Agassi, J. and Jarvie, I. C. (1987), Rationality: The Critical View, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Augros, Robert M., Stanciu, George N., The New Story of Science: mind and the universe, Lake Bluff, Ill.: Regnery
Gateway, c1984. ISBN 0895268337
Ben-Ari, M. (2005) Just a theory: exploring the nature of science, Prometheus Books, Amherst, N.Y.
Bovens, L. and Hartmann, S. (2003), Bayesian Epistemology, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Boyd, R., Gasper, P., and Trout, J.D. (eds., 1991), The Philosophy of Science, Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, MA.
Feyerabend, Paul K. 2005. Science, history of the philosophy of. Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford.
Glazebrook, Trish (2000), Heidegger's Philosophy of Science, Fordham University Press.
Godfrey-Smith, P. (2003) Theory and reality: an introduction to the philosophy of science, The University of Chicago
Press, Chicago and London
Gutting, Gary (2004), Continental Philosophy of Science, Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, MA.
Harris, Errol E. (1965), The Foundations of Metaphysics in Science , George Allen and Unwin, London, Reprinted by
Routledge, London (2002).
Harris, Errol E. (1991), Cosmos and Anthropos, Humanities Press, New Jersey.
Hawking, Stephen. (2001), The Universe in a Nutshell, Bantam Press. ISBN 0-553-80202-X
Harré, R. (1972), The Philosophies of Science: An Introductory Survey, Oxford University Press, London, UK.
Heelan, Patrick A. (1983), Space-Perception and the Philosophy of Science, University of California Press, Berkeley,
CA.
Honderich, Ted (Ed.) (2005) The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press. New York, NY.
Kearney, R. (1994), Routledge History of Philosophy, Routledge Press. See Vol. 8.
Klemke, E., et al. (eds., 1998), Introductory Readings in The Philosophy of Science, Prometheus Books, Amherst, New
York, NY.
Kneale, William, and Kneale, Martha (1962), The Development of Logic, Oxford University Press, London, UK.
Kuipers, T.A.F. (2001), Structures in Science, An Advanced Textbook in Neo-Classical Philosophy of Science, Synthese
Library, Springer
33
34. Ladyman, J. (2002), Understanding Philosophy of Science, Routledge, London, UK.
Losee, J. (1998), A Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Newton-Smith, W.H. (ed., 2001), A Companion to the Philosophy of Science, Blackwell Publishers, Malden, MA.
Newall Paul (2004) The Gallilean Library- http://www.galilean-library.org/manuscript.php?postid=43784
Niiniluoto, I. (2002), Critical Scientific Realism, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Pap, A. (1962), An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Papineau, D. (ed., 1997), The Philosophy of Science, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Papineau, David. 2005. Science, problems of the philosophy of. Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford.
Piattelli-Palmarini, Massimo (ed., 1980), Language and Learning, The Debate between Jean Piaget and Noam
Chomsky, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Alexander Rosenberg, (2000), Philosophy of Science: A Contemporary Introduction, Routledge, London, UK.
Runes, D.D. (ed.), Dictionary of Philosophy, Littlefield, Adams, and Company, Totowa, NJ, 1962.
Salmon, M.H., et al. (1999), Introduction to the Philosophy of Science: A Text By Members of the Department of the
History and Philosophy of Science of the University of Pittsburgh, Hacket Publishing Company, Indianapolis, IN.
Snyder, Paul (1977), Toward One Science: The Convergence of Traditions, St Martin's Press.
van Fraassen, Bas C. (1980), The Scientific Image, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
van Luik, James, The Energy of Ideas, Crow Hill Press, Cambridge, MA. 2000
Walker, Benjamin, Caesar's Church: The Irrational in Science & Philosophy, Book Guild, Lewes, Sussex, 2001, ISBN 1-
85776-625-3
Wikipedia-Philosophy of Science- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
Ziman, John (2000). Real Science: what it is, and what it means. Cambridge, Uk: Cambridge University Press.
34