Philosophy of the Sciences, Lecture 3, 13/09/03 The Demarcation Problem and Falsificationism.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Believing Where We Cannot Prove Philip Kitcher
Advertisements

Intro to Course and What is Learning?. What is learning? Definition of learning: Dictionary definition: To gain knowledge, comprehension, or mastery through.
Popper On Science Economics Lawlor. What is and inductive inference? Example: “All Swans are white” Needs an observation to confirm it’s truth.
Theories and Models SNC2D. Theories and Models: Daily Learning Goal The student will be able to differentiate between scientific laws and scientific theories.
Karl Popper Popper replaces induction with falsification
The Problem of Induction Reading: ‘The Problem of Induction’ by W. Salmon.
Philosophy 223 Relativism and Egoism. Remember This Slide? Ethical reflection on the dictates of morality can address these sorts of issues in at least.
Phil 3318: Philosophy of Science Observation & Auxiliary Hypotheses.
Saving the Date vs. Coherence Reflections on fossils and scientific method.
FALSIFIABILITY IS THE HEART OF SCIENCE
Falsifiability One requirement for a valid scientific theory is that it satisfies the Falsifiability criterion Predictions derived from it could potentially.
“The Demarcation Problem” (Science and pseudo-science) Case one: Geocentrism (an earth-centered universe) vs. Heliocentrism (a sun centered universe).
Astro 10-Lecture 2: The nature of science and scientific models Dr. Eric Korpela
Philosophy of the Sciences, Lecture 5 Troubles with Falsificationism and Thagard’s Answer to the Demarcation Problem
Lecture 6 1. Mental gymnastics to prepare to tackle Hume 2. The Problem of Induction as Hume argues for it 1. His question 2. His possible solutions 3.
The Problem of Induction Reading: ‘The Problem of Induction’ by W. Salmon.
Qualitative research in psychology. A distinct research process Inquiries of knowledge that are outside the framework prescribed by the scientific method,
Acquiring Knowledge in Science. Some Questions  What is science and how does it work?  Create a list of words to describe science  Which ways of knowing.
Motions of the Earth and Sky Part II. Depending on the relative sizes and distances of the Sun and a moon, you might see an eclipse like this: Sun planet.
Philosophy of science II
Philosophy and the Scientific Method Dr Keith Jones.
Lecture 7: Ways of Knowing - Reason. Part 1: What is reasoning? And, how does it lead to knowledge?
Ways of Arguing with Intelligent Design: Philosophers on Demarcation Creationist criticism of evolutionary theory takes many forms, but one of the more.
Hypothesis testing. Classical hypothesis testing is a statistical method that appeared in the first third of the 20 th Century, alongside the “modern”
Science & Its Pretenders
History of Psychology “What is the mind?” Mind and science Mind and body.
So, how do we draw the line between science and pseudoscience?
Psychology Has Many Faces: Science, Academic Discipline, Healing Profession Clinician Researcher Teacher Understand Research Methods.
Lawrence M. Hinman, Ph.D. Director, The Values Institute University of San Diego 9/24/20151(c) Lawrence M. Hinman Psychological Egoism.
Freud and Falsifiability Was he even wrong?. “It just seems wrong”... In Science, you cannot reject or confirm something based on feelings or anecdotal.
Big Idea 1: The Practice of Science Description A: Scientific inquiry is a multifaceted activity; the processes of science include the formulation of scientifically.
How Does Gravity Work?!?! General Relativity. Aristotle described the effect of gravity as the natural motion of an object to return to its realm. Kepler.
 Albert Einstein’s Conjecture  Sir Arthur Eddington’s Test  Popper’s Account.
Astronomy 2 Overview of the Universe Winter Lectures on Greek Astronomy Joe Miller.
Copyright © 2011 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill/Irwin Developing and Evaluating Theories of Behavior.
Ancient Greek Thinking on Astronomy Aristotle’s geocentric model of the universe. 1.
WHAT IS THE NATURE OF SCIENCE?. SCIENTIFIC WORLD VIEW 1.The Universe Is Understandable. 2.The Universe Is a Vast Single System In Which the Basic Rules.
Nature of Science. Science is a Tentative Enterprise  The product of the judgment of individuals  Requires individuals to defend their conclusions by.
11/8/2015 Nature of Science. 11/8/2015 Nature of Science 1. What is science? 2. What is an observation? 3. What is a fact? 4. Define theory. 5. Define.
Chapter 27: Hypotheses, Explanations, and Inference to the Best Explanation.
Popper: “Falsifiability is the criterion” Lecture updated!  Why reject verifiability?  By then (for reasons we will study shortly), scientists and philosophers.
What do we cover in section C?. Unit 4 research methods Explain the key features of scientific investigation and discuss whether psychology can be defined.
Philosophical Aspects of Science Soraj Hongladarom Department of Philosophy Faculty of Arts.
Lecture 4  The Paleolithic period (or Old Stone Age) is the earliest period of human development. Dating from about 2 million years ago, and ending in.
TOPIC #1: Chapter 22 Origin of Modern Astronomy. Section 1: Early Astronomy Astronomy is the science that studies the universe. The “Golden Age” of early.
Science News. Science (?) News Demarcation “We [scientists] believe that the world is knowable, that there are simple rules governing the behavior of.
RESEARCH METHODS The Nature of Science. WHAT IS SCIENCE? You can’t study psychology without being aware of what science is (Dyer 2006) Learning Objectives.
John Wisdom’s Parable of the Gardener AS Philosophy God and the World – Seeing as hns adapted from richmond.
Confirmation, Falsification, Underdetermination. Empiricism is the winning view Empiricist: Accept that we can acquire knowledge about the future and.
Phil 3318: Philosophy of Science Observation & Auxiliary Hypotheses.
Predictive Failure Evolutionary theory is often charged with predictive failure. Critics argue that the theory: a. makes no predictions it is unfalsifiable.
Chapter 1 Introduction to Research in Psychology.
BHS Methods in Behavioral Sciences I April 14, 2003 Chapter 3 (Ray) – Developing the Hypothesis.
History of the Development of Psychology PAGE
The Scientific Method. How can we ask questions about functions, interaction, etc.? The Scientific Method – Process of inquiry Discovery Science – Descriptive.
RESEARCH METHODS B 1. SESSION 2: SCIENCE AND RESEARCH (cont.) V.Scientific explanations VI. Theorizing and logical process 2.
Today’s lecture Powers of ten Scientific method. Powers of ten are shorthand for writing very large numbers 10 0 = 1One 10 1 = 10Ten (deca) 10 2 = 100Hundred.
Philosophy of science What is a scientific theory? – Is a universal statement Applies to all events in all places and time – Explains the behaviour/happening.
What is Scientific Knowledge?. What is “knowledge”? 1. A person must hold a belief. 2. This belief must be true. 3. There must be evidence that the belief.
WHAT IS THE NATURE OF SCIENCE?
KARL POPPER ON THE PROBLEM OF A THEORY OF SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Sociology as a Science.
Research methods Lesson 2.
Criticisms of Sociology as a Science:
As a scientist, you are a Professional writer. Lecture II
Imre Lakatos ( ) ` All scientific theories are equally un-provable
Developing and Evaluating Theories of Behavior
As a scientist, you are a Professional writer. Lecture II
Criticisms of Sociology as a Science:
Psychological Egoism.
Presentation transcript:

Philosophy of the Sciences, Lecture 3, 13/09/03 The Demarcation Problem and Falsificationism

Science is an invention, a relatively recent invention. There was a time in our history when there was nothing to which we’d happily apply our word ‘science’. Not until the 17 th century did what we would recognize as modern physics emerge (via Newton and his discoveries) as a separate discipline.

What we think of as biology didn’t exist until 1859 (when it emerged with the publication of Darwin’s Origin of the Species). Psychology as we know it had to wait until the beginning of the 20 th century, and computer science is an infant—only a little more than 50 years old!

Physics and biology are descendants of the philosophical sub-discipline known as metaphysics—roughly, the study of what there is: what fundamental kinds and properties there are and how they relate. And psychology descends from philosophical reflection on the nature of the mind and its properties, i.e. the philosophy of mind. Computer science, for its part, stems from philosophy’s millennium long interest in logic.

Interestingly, all of these sciences grew from philosophical roots. (From the concerns of the ancient Greek philosophers and primarily from the concerns of Aristotle).

What makes a theory scientific? The question is: intrinsically interesting of practical importance -Who gets the money? -Who wins the argument?

crucial for understanding the value of science -Science is an invention, claimed by many to be humanity’s best.

A better formulation: What distinguishes science from non-science? (the demarcation problem) Initial proposals: (1) Science offers explanations. (2) Science is objective. (3) Science is descriptive. (4) Science makes predictions.

(5) Science proceeds from observation. The trouble with the initial proposals: They don’t do any distinguishing. Popper The wrong answer to the demarcation problem: Science is inductive; it proceeds by observation and experiment.

Why the wrong answer? Non-scientific theories can be based on observation and experiment. “…astrology with its stupendous mass of empirical evidence based on observation—on horoscopes and biographies.” Popper’s 4 candidate theories: (1) Einstein’s theory of relativity.

(2) Marx’s theory of history (3) Freud’s psychoanalysis (4) Adler’s individual psychology Popper’s intuition: (1) is scientific, (2)-(4) not. Truth not the issue. At the time, Popper didn’t believe that Einstein’s theory was true. Exactness also not the issue.

The appeal of (2)-(4): Their apparent explanatory power. Exposure brought about an “intellectual conversion” and confirming instances of the theory were seen everywhere. Indeed, nothing seemed to count as disconfirmation, as evidence against the theory. Every observation could be interpreted in light of the theory.

The Freud vs. Adler example. (p. 40) The difference with respect to (1)— Einstein’s theory: The theory makes risky predictions, predictions which, if false, sink the theory.

E’s theory has the result that light, like material bodies, is attracted by heavy bodies such as the sun. This led to the prediction that the light from certain stars—those which appear in the night sky as close to the sun—would appear, if observed in daylight, as slightly shifted away from their normal position, slightly further away from the sun.

This prediction can’t be tested in ordinary circumstances because of the sun’s brightness. But during an eclipse one can take a photograph of a star’s apparent position in the daytime sky. And then photos of the star taken in the day and in the night can be compared and its apparent distance from the sun can be measured.

This is just what Eddington did. And the prediction of Einstein’s theory was shown to be correct. The significance of this, acc. to Popper: Einstein’s theory, unlike (3)-(4), is incompatible with certain possible results of observation.

In other words, E’s theory is refutable or falsifiable (the term that has stuck). It is possibly false. If our observations had been different, it would have been shown to be false (though they weren’t and it wasn’t). This, then, is Popper’s solution to the demarcation problem: A theory is scientific just in case it is falsifiable.

A theory is scientific just in case it is falsifiable. Remember: Truth is not the issue for Popper. Accordingly, his solution to the demarcation problem doesn’t make being true a criterion for being science. Theories that are true may be falsifiable. But, equally, theories that are false may be falsifiable as well.

Some consequences and corollaries of Popper’s solution to the demarcation problem: Theories not falsifiable by any conceivable event are not scientific. (Thus, the naïve view that science strives for irrefutability gets things exactly the wrong way around.) Every good scientific theory is a prohibition--it denies that certain things may happen.

A test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it. “Confirming evidence” is too easy to come by and should only count towards the acceptability of a theory if it is the result of an attempt at falsification.

Some genuinely falsifiable theories, when falsified, are maintained by their admirers either by re-casting the theory or adding auxilliary assumptions. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory only by destroying or reducing the theory’s claim to scientific status. (Popper calls such rescue operations conventionalist twists.)

Who passes the falsification test? (1)—Einstein’s theory of relativity—passes. It makes risky predictions (re: the apparent positions of stars, e.g.) Astrology fails. Vagueness of its predictions makes it unfalsifiable. (2)—the Marxist theory of history—fails. It once passed, but it was given various conventionalist twists.

(3) and (4)—the psychoanalytic theories—fail. No conceivable bit of human behavior could refute them. Non-science but not unimportant. Analogy with primitive myths. These myths often shape later science (the ancient Greek examples).