Week I (Assignment: read selections from E reserve material
in the folder “Attitudes and Conflicts”)
I. Attitudes towards sciences.
Conflicts between science, religion, ethics.
·
Science as salvation
·
Science as enemy of salvation
·
Science vs. ethics
·
Science vs. religion
·
Science supporting religion
a. Science as salvation
·
Hawkhill*
·
Tokyo
Declaration*
b. Science as enemy of
salvation
·
Psychology/soul*
c. Science, Ethics, Religion
·
Cohen*
·
Dawkins
d. Science and the Brave New
World
·
Genetics and
healing
1. Somatic cell therapy
2. Germ line therapy
·
Genetics and
improvement (Eugenics)
1. Eugenics in history.
I.
DEFINING SCIENCE:
MODELS, HYPOTHESES, METHOD.
a.Theoretical
models:
·
Distinguish from
scale, analog, models.
·
Theoretical models are given by explicit definitions which define a system. . E.g.
Newtonian particle systems: Defined explicitly by the laws of motion and G.
b. Theoretical
hypothesis are claims to the effect that a given model “fits” some natural
system.
·
Consider the
claim that the earth and sun form a Newtonian particle system. That says that
the earth and sun instantiate the three laws and G. And, the earth, sun, and
planets form such a system, etc.
·
Consider the
claim that Halley’s comet and the sun form a Newtonian particle system.
1.
Explanation and prediction.
c. Scientific
Theories are the conjunction of a set of theoretical hypotheses, or are general theoretical hypothesis.
What about “laws” (as in Overton)? The idea is that,
for example G, is “universally true.” But it isn’t, nor are most “laws.” Ergo not laws ?
·
Advantage in
thinking of them as elements in a model that can have local applications.
·
Advantages for
geology, etc.
·
Models always fit
actual systems only APPROXIMATELY.
·
Laws are often
thought of as fitting perfectly (the
19th century legacy of physics and chemistry).
d. deterministic models
·
Given initial
conditions and model, X must happen.
·
Examples:
e. probabilistic or
stochastic models
·
Given initial
conditions and model, X will probably happen (is likely to happen etc.)
·
Examples;
Mendelian genetics.
II.
JUSTIFYING
THEORIES.
A. Standard view. Put the theory to the test. “Predict”
something on basis of a “model application.” Cf. Halley.
1. If ((H (model applied)and initial conditions) then P
(P is what is predicted, e.g. that the comet will show up in 75 years, or will
“show up” in past records every 75 years. etc. )
a. H is the claim( the “Hypothesis”) that a model applies
to a real system. E.g.
b. Initial conditions (IC) are various factual claims but
can include theoretical claims. If (H and IC), then P. E.g.
B. What makes a GOOD test? Three things.
1. Prediction is logically deducible. E.g.
2. Prediction (e.g. comet will appear in Dec. etc.) is
improbable (relative to what is known or generally believed at the time of the
P.) Contrast with some predictions of Jeanne Dixon type.
3. P is verifiable. (or falsifiable. i.e. has some
empirical bearing, what shows up counts for or against it).
The simple inductive rule.
Conduct the test. If you get P, then H is probably true. If not-P, then not-H
(for sure, supposedly). That does NOT mean
·
If H then P,
(condition 1)
·
P,
·
therefore H! What a horrible argument that
would be!!
Rather, this:
Justifying argument:
1. If (Not H and IC and B (background knowledge)), then
Not-P (this is condition 2)
2. P. Remember, P was considered highly improbable
relative to IC and B.
The “improbable” indicates inductive
ingredient of this argument.
Now P is the same as not-not-P. So,
3. Not (Not H and IC and B) (modus tollens)
4. H or not-IC or
not-B (deMorgans)
5. IC and B (i.e.
not-not IC etc.)
6. H (Disjunctive
syllogism)
Apply this
to Halley case:
Disconfirming
argument
1.
If H (etc.) then P
2.
Not P.
3.
Therefore, not H.
More
fully,
1.
If (H and IC and B) then P
2.
Not P
3.
Therefore, not (H and IC and B)
4.
Therefore, not H or not IC or not B.
5.
IC and B
6.
Not H.
Problem:
How can you be sure about 5? B might include a great deal of theory,
assumptions about equipment, etc. See the
“Quine-Duhem”
selection in the Method folder. Quine-Duhem thesis: NO theory (theoretical
hypothesis) can be decisively confirmed.(of course). AND none can be decisively
refuted either. (!!!) Notice Overton again.
Thus,
all scientific theories are “underdetermined” by evidence.
A. AND, since either not H or not IC or
not B, we might want to ADJUST B (or IC). Priestly on negative weight. Compare
testing the roundness of earth H. Or, the Ptolomaic hypothesis. Etc. Ptolomey: there was a bit of recalcitrant
data, viz. retrograde motion of some planets. A “falsifying data” you might
say. But, does Ptolomey (do those in his “tradition”) give up the theory for
this reason? NO. Are they then not doing SCIENCE? Cf. Overton on
falsifiability. But it IS science, and the falsifying data can be gotten rid of
by rigging the original hypothesis, questioning initial conditions and
background beliefs (IC and B). Thus, epicycles. “ad hoc rescue.”
B. Copernican view; don’t need epicycles
to explain apparent retrograde motion. Ergo is SIMPLER theory, starts a new theoretical
tradition. Ptolomey was getting bogged down in too many ad hoc assumptions.
1.
However, the Copernican model ran into plenty of “falsifying data” also. E.g.
apparent brightness of some planets, stellar parallax, etc.
2.
Consider the case of phlogiston.
Priestly hung on to the theory despite the “falsifying
test” with mercury. Was he then not doing science?
But, this is crazy, right? Science is eminently
rational, and it is clearly cumulative. Latter science is a further refinement
and development of earlier.
1.Boyle built on Torricelli
2.Galileo built on Copernicus, Brahe.
3.Newton built on Galileo, etc.
Each forward step is forward, i.e. is
getting us closer to the truth about what nature is REALLY LIKE.
Quine/Duhem seem to deliver a blow to this
rosy picture. How much of one? Whatever is decided, worse things are waiting in
the wings ---BOO! Its KUHN!
I
Kuhn and
Social Constructionism
A) Quine/Duhem may give the impression that there is
nothing particularly rational about scientific enquiry.
1)
No “progress”, just a lot of people making
adjustments to theories so they fit the “facts.” Or, getting tired of it and
trying something new.
2)
Are there any
true generalizations about what scientists are doing?
B)
Enter Kuhn: there
are. They are historical
generalizations. Scientific enquiry proceeds through the use of PARADIGMS.
That is the magical word in Kuhn.
1)
The word has many meanings in Kuhn (as many as
27?) A paradigm is any or all of the
following (mixed together):
(a)
Paradigms are
like theoretical and/or analog models.
(i) Molecules (of Gases say) as little billiard balls
knocking around. Heuristic (Bernoulli).
(ii) Kinetic theory of heat. Heat IS kinetic energy
(metaphysical)
(iii) The Doppler-Fizeau effect. Sound Waves –light “waves”
(i) Guiding solutions to new problems.
(b) A set of “paradigmatic” cases used in initiating
students into a subject: e.g. use of balls on ramps, pendulums etc. in physics.
These cases are usually best cases, i.e. the model applies particularly well to
them.
(i) They also guide solution to further problems.
(c)
Paradigms define
legitimate questions or problems and methods
(i) They do this by attracting investigators away from
competitor theories
(ii) They leave room for further investigations.
(d) Paradigm=what members of a scientific community share,
which is lots of stuff
(e)
Vocabulary and
paradigms. Cf. ‘force’, ‘mass’ etc. quasi-tautologies.
(f)Paradigms lead to specialization, work on details.
2)
Paradigms “order
the world.”
(a)
We “take the
data” in accord with them.
(i) See this problem as like that already solved problem.
(ii) SEEING A as like B. Rather than learning rules for
applying e.g. ‘F.’
(iii) Seeing air as
like water. Thus water pressure varies ONLY with depth. Gestalt. Illustrate.
Seeing solution to one problem in mechanics as like solution to another
(learning different extensions of f=ma.)
Background: Illustrate
THUS
(b) Shared examples (exemplars) function cognitively prior
to rules, criteria. Cf. Kuhn 80 ff.
(c)
Without a
paradigm, fact gathering is random
(i) What do you go looking for if you are a Newtonian? A
Darwinian? Significant facts are, e.g. facts about quantity of matter and
forces acting between them.
3)
We have now arrived
at NORMAL SCIENCE. Operation within a paradigm.
(a)
Mopping up
operation. Procrustean, ignore what does not fit.
(b) “Assured existence of a solution” (SSR 37). You know the answer is there and even what it
will look like.
(c)
Different levels
of paradigms; corpuscularism as a high level paradigm that sets problems and
admissible solutions. Cf. SSR 104 ff.
(i) Actual regression to earlier paradigm in Newton – i.e.
the opposite of “progress.” Action at a
distance as occult (mysterious, unexplained)
(ii) Attempts to remedy this went nowhere.
4)
Paradigms and “confirmation.” Learning
applications is NOT acquiring evidence (SSR 81)
II
Anomalies and
revolutions: Phlogiston theory.
A) The theory’s explanatory power.
substances lose mass when they burn because