PHIL 160: Why Do We Believe in Quarks, Evolution, and Other “Crazy” Things? Professor: Lynn Hankinson Nelson Instructors: Bennett Barr Cheryl Fitzgerald Mitch Kauffman

PHIL 160 website: Course requirements, grading policies Course topics and reading schedule, with links to electronic readings Test and review dates, essay topics and due dates Links to power point lecture slides More useful links Some fun links…

Introduction to the philosophy of science Philosophy of science: “… is just science gone self-conscious” WV Quine What is science? How is it different, if it is, from other practices or institutions (fiction? art? religion? politics?) What is the nature and strength of the evidence for scientific hypotheses/theories?

PHIL 160: Introduction to Philosophy of Science Philosophy of science has long been of interest Scientists who have engaged in philosophy of science: AristotleGalileo Robert Boyle NewtonDarwinEinstein Leon Lederman Stephen Jay Gould… and many more

PHIL 160 What is the nature of the evidence that supports scientific hypotheses and/or theories? How strong is that evidence? Suppose a theory includes objects (such as quarks) or historical events/processes (such as evolutionary events/processes) that are not directly observable? What kind of evidence supports such theories and the objects/processes they posit?

The curious objects and hypotheses of contemporary science Most of the universe (95%) is made of dark matter and dark energy … and we don’t know what they are – nor can our senses observe them.

The curious objects and hypotheses of contemporary science “Our” universe is just one part of the multiverse. There is a wraith-like particle (the Higgs Boson) that constantly deceives us about the nature of matter. The LHC and the Tevatron (big particle colliders) are trying to confirm its existence Despite appearances, everything is made of tiny vibrating strings

The curious objects and hypotheses of contemporary science Cosmology, the science concerned with the origins of the universe, will inevitably end as the universe expands and all traces of The Big Bang disappear Life emerged from inanimate matter It is “imperfections” – rudimentary organs and other evidence of “jury-rigging” or tinkering – that constitute the best evidence of evolution

PHIL 160 What is science? Some proposed answers:  A body of knowledge (theories and hypotheses) that grows cumulatively and progressively  A specific method (or set of methods) that distinguishes it from other enterprises or activities (including others concerned to gain or produce knowledge)  A social institution just like others (competition, prestige hierarchies, rewards) that interacts with others (industrial, military, political…)

PHIL 160 All of these are compatible with: Science is an enterprise concerned to develop theories that explain and predict phenomena and/or increase our understanding of nature When did it emerge? Origin myths In general, origin myths reflect what some group of people or institution values and takes to be unique about itself

PHIL 160 When did science emerge? Myths as “proto” science Vegetation myths: Why are there seasons? Demeter, Persephone, and Hades An explanation of the changes in seasons And, as such, allowing for predictions of future phenomena Are myths different from science – and if they are, when did (genuine) science emerge?

PHIL 160  On some accounts, something like science emerged among the ancient Greeks in Miletus around 650 BCE.  There a group began to ask:  What is everything made of ?  The one and many  Thales: Everything is made of water  Anaximander: Everything is made of “the boundless”  Anaximenes: Everything is made of air  Democritus: Everything is made of a-toms (“un- cuttable stuff”)

PHIL 160  The one and many  Appearance and reality  It doesn’t appear that everything is made of one kind of stuff Natural explanations of phenomena  We’ve moved beyond appeal to supernatural entities and processes  Critical evaluation of such explanations  Moving beyond appeal to the supernatural, we are in a position to critically evaluate explanations

PHIL 160  An alternative account of the emergence of science:  The Scientific Revolution  When the Copernican hypothesis succeeded in replacing the geocentric view of Ptolemy and Aristotle  As the Ptolemaic/Aristotelian view had been accepted by the Catholic Church as “divinely revealed”, and because Galileo was condemned as a heretic and confined to house arrest for life, this episode has been taken to represent the victory of science (evidence-based theorizing and knowledge) over religion (faith, dogma…)

PHIL 160  This origin story has had legs…  It has served to justify two norms: 1.That knowledge is a good in itself. 2.That science must be autonomous: it must be able to proceed with finding out how things are without interference based on religious or other views and values.

PHIL 160  But, like many (if not all) origin myths, it is self-serving and not fully accurate  There were good scientific reasons to doubt the Copernican hypothesis and the observations made possible by Galileo’s telescope  Many of those in the Catholic clergy who opposed the Copernican hypothesis were actually scientists, and their objections were scientific in nature.

Course content and structure   The course has an “arc” (or a trajectory or narrative…)   Part III (the “sexy” stuff)   Relationships between science and its social/historical context? Implications for objectivity?   Observation   Social values/beliefs and science   Ethical issues confronting scientists and the lay public raised by scientific knowledge

Course content and structure   Part I: (Somewhat sexy stuff)   Examples from contemporary sciences that illustrate the reasoning that leads scientists to propose objects/events/processes that are not directly able to be observed   Some attempts to identify what it is that distinguishes science from non-science and/or “pseudo” science and how they function in current debates over Intelligent Design and Evolution…

Course content and structure   Part II: (Somewhat “dryer” stuff but crucial to dealing with the issues studied in Parts I and III)   Several (different but popular) accounts of scientific method/reasoning and case studies to evaluate them   Two (very different) accounts of scientific explanation and case studies to evaluate them

PHIL 160 Leon Lederman Nobel laureate An experimental physicist in the area of particle physics and former director of Fermilab (where Tevatron is) The God Particle: If the Universe is the Answer, What is the Question? (Read all of chapter 1 and pp. 1-6 of chapter 2) Still pursuing the question “what are the ultimate building blocks of the universe?” And addressing the question: “what is the evidence for “un- observable” objects, events, and/or processes?” (Pay particular attention to “the invisible soccer ball”!)