What Is This Thing Called Science (Lecture 1)
•
3 likes•1,706 views
Part 1 of an introductory lecture on the nature of scientific inquiry. The intended audience are Junior College students.
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to What Is This Thing Called Science (Lecture 1)
Similar to What Is This Thing Called Science (Lecture 1) (20)
More from Yew Leong Wong
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
What Is This Thing Called Science (Lecture 1)
- 1. WhAt Is thIs thIng cAlled ScIeNcE? BlaCk bob the Bold LeaPs BraVely Into UncErtan DeaTh. a VicToria JunIor ColLege KnoWlEdge & InqUiry LecTure. Wong yew LeoNg.
- 2. thE meAning of iT all “scIence means, someTimes, a spEcial methOd of findinG ThingS out. soMetimEs it meanS the body of kNowledgE ArisiNg frOm thE thiNgs fOund oUt. it may Also Mean The nEw thIngs You cAn do when you Have Found SometHing oUt, or tHe acTual Doing of nEw thinGs. RiChArD p. fEyNmAn
- 3. thE meThods, toolS and sensIbiliTies Of scIentistS thE bodY of KnowlEdge ProduCed bY sciEntistS thE valUe of sciencE
- 4. the NaïVe moDel oF ScienTific inquirY
- 6. UUUU UU U U HUUU f neW or UnexpEcted PhenoMenon PrObLeM alL apeS walK on Four leGs. (idEntifIed wIthin the ConteXt of an eXistiNg seT Of acCepteD theOries.)
- 7. UUUU UU U U HUUU f hYpOtHeSiS (ExplaNatioN-on-Trial) huMan bEings are A difFerenT speCies From apEs. neW or UnexpEcted PhenoMenon
- 8. H pReDiCtIoNs (a PriorI RejecTion Rules) hyPothesIs: huMan bEings are A difFerenT speCies From apEs. 1. huMans And aPes aRe unAble tO InterBreed and ProduCe feRtile OffspriNg. 2. humaN dNa is sIgnifIcantlY DiffeRent From apE dNa.
- 9. H Uf NeW ObSeRvAtIoNs (ResulTs of indePendeNt teSting oF HypotHesis)
- 10. PrObLeM hYpOtHeSiS pReDiCtIoNs NeW oBsErVaTiOnS prEdictIons Are truE prEdictIons Are fAlse suPport hypoThesiS reJect HypotHesis And fOrmulAte neW HypotHesis is this modeL of ScienTific inquIry aCcuraTe?
- 11. do scieNtistS alwayS AccepT a hYpothEsis When ExperImentAl/ ObserVatioNal eVidencE ConfiRms it? do scieNtistS alwayS DiscaRd a HypotHesis When ExperImentAl/ ObserVatioNal eVidencE ContrAdicts It? HHHHHHHthE sciEntifIc coMmunitY whAt roLe do they Play In knOwledgE ConstRuctiOn?
- 12. scIence is oPen tO revIsion. (reFers To boTh neWly aDvancEd hyPotheSes anD EstabLisheD theOries.)
- 13. scIence is oPen tO revIsion. whAt doEs thIs reAlly meAn? whAt doEs thIs idEa teLl us abouT the NaturE of ScienTific inquiRy?
- 14. whAt’S the big Deal About RevisIng oUr hyPothesEs? whAt arE we ChangIng oUr miNds aboUt? whY are we cHangiNg ouR minDs? hoW do We chAnge Our minDs?
- 15. baRry fEels SomeoNe hoLding Him fRom bEhind, but There’S No onE theRe. ghOsts Exist! whAt prEdictIons Can wE LogicAlly Deduce from the HypotHesis That GhostS exiSt? whaT IndepEndenT obsErvatioNs/Tests can We maKe/ConduCt to checK wheTher The pRedicTions are trUe?
- 16. H! U! sCiEnCe NoN-sCiEnCe f = mA ghOsts Exist. hyPotheSes arE IndepEndenTly tEstabLe. hyPotheSes aRe noT IndepEndenTly tEstabLe. prEdictIons Are cLear And IndepEndenTly oBservabLe/TestablE crUcial obServaTions/ExperImentS are RepeaTable No cleaR prEdictIons prEdictIons Are nOt inDepenDentlY ObserVable/TestablE crUcial obServaTions/ExperImentS are Not rEpeatAble
- 17. scIence is nOt neCessaRily Better, oR More ImportaNt, than non-ScienCe.
- 18. H! H! sCiEnCe pSeUdOsCiEnCe 1. boLd hyPotheseS 2. unBiased, unprEjudiceD 3. doEs noT relY on ArbitRary JudgeMents 4. gaMely AdmitS defEat iN the face Of ovErwheLming counTerevIdencE 5. usEs reLiablE metHods 6. exPlainS cauSal mEchanisM 1. hyPotheSes aRe noT bolD 2. biAsed And pRejudIced 3. rely on aRbitrarY JudgeMents 4. trIes tO wigGle oUt of trouBle bY IntroDucinG ad Hoc hYpothEses 5. usEs unReliaBle mEthodS 6. no causAl meChanisM
- 19. H huMan bEings are A difFerenT speCies From apEs. H soMe apEs waLk on two leGs. H soMe anImals walk on tWo leGs. VeRy BoLd NoT sO BoLd ChIcKeN pOoP
- 20. “thE forcE (F) exerTed bY an ObjecT is Given by iTs masS (M) And rAte oF accEleraTion (A).” “f = ma”
- 21. shOuld We reGard ScienTific claiMs witH GreateR SceptIcism? whY has therE beeN so Much TheorEticaL RevisIon iN the histOry oF scienCe?
- 22. obServaTions are Not pErfect. we are LimitEd by how Our pErcepTual OrganS work. we are LimitEd by techNologY and enviRonmeNtal FactoRs. we are LimitEd by our ConcePtual struCtures. e! )!
- 23. “moTion Does Not aFfect the WeighT of An objeCt.” (prEdictiOn: if yOu spIn a Top aNd weIgh iT (While it iS spiNning), and Then Weigh it aFter It haS stoPped SpinniNg, it wIll wEigh The saMe.) a SpinnIng tOp weIghs More Than A staTionaRy toP by A few partS in Less Than A billiOn. if the Top sPins Fast EnougH so That The sPeed oF The eDges ApproAches 299,338 KilomEtres per Second, the WeighT IncreAse iS appReciabLe, but Not uNtil thEn.
- 24. hyPotheSes aNd thEorieS in ScienCe arE InducTively deriVed froM CurreNtly AvailabLe evidenCe. gobbLe? hi toBy! it’S ThankSgivinG Today. do you Know What That Means?
- 25. so arE sciEntifIc thEorieS true?
- 29. I’M preTty surE I’M rigHt. i Have A TruckLoad Of evIdencE to Back mE Up. i Could be wroNg, of cOurse. I’M AlwayS wilLing To reConsiDer iF SomeoNe shOws mE somEthinG thaT SuggeSts thaT i May bE misTaken.
- 30. HHHHHHHthE sciEntifIc coMmunitY thE indIviduAl is the Locus of eRror And iGnoranCe, and BecomEs selF- Aware only when he iNteraCts wIth oThers. so, scieNtifiC inqUiry Is noT onlY FalliBilistIc, but Also Social. eaCh geNuine inquIrer ContrIbuteS to A vasT entErpriSe wiThin And aCross GenerAtions, makiNg hiS worK freEly aVailaBle tO otheRs; even if hE faiLs, His wOrk wIll bE one of tHe caRcassEs ovEr whIch fUture geneRatioNs of InquiRers Climb as tHey sTorm The fOrtreSs of knowLedge. if this fallIble And iMperfEct sCientIfic InquirY Were To coNtinuE lonG enougH (AlthoUgh tHere Is no guarAntee that it wiLl), a finAl, IndefEasibLy seTtled opinIon wOuld Be agreEd.
- 31. N! N!N! N! N! N!
- 32. prOgresS in ScienCe is only possIble BecauSe scIentiSts rEcognisE The eXisteNce oF douBt abOut tHeir FindinGs. beCause they have this doubt, they contInue To loOk in new DirecTions for New ideAs. yet, scieNtistS musT feeL cerTain EnougH aboUt thEir fIndinGs to Think that they have got It rigHt, otheRwise they woulD not have PubliShed Their findIngs And oThers woulD not have inveNted WondeRful MachiNes oN the basiS of Their findinGs.
- 33. 8!daviD deUtsch. “a neW waY to exPlain exPlanatiOn.” TedgLobal, 2009. (htTp://wWw.tEd.cOm/Talks/laNg/En/ David_DeutsCh_a_nEw_wAy_To_ExplaIn_ExplaNation.htMl) riChard P. feYnman. thE meAning oF it aLl. peNguin booKs, 1998. (pdf versIon cUrrenTly aVailaBle oN the inTernet.)