DOCSLIB.ORG

PHI230 Philosophy of Science

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
PHI230 Philosophy of Science Department of Philosophy Level 2 Module PHI230 Philosophy of Science LECTURER: George Botterill Office Hours Wed 12-1, Fri 1-2; external tel: (0114)2220580; email: [email protected] Lectures: Monday 2-3 in Hicks Building LT6 Friday 11-12 in Hicks Building LT5 Seminars: See MOLE unit to join: Monday 4-5 Jessop Building 215, Friday 12-1 Jessop Building 215 GENERAL OUTLINE This course will deal with major issues in the philosophy of science, with particular emphasis on the rationality of theory-change, explanation, the status of scientific laws, observation, and the structure of scientific theories. Most of the course will be devoted to the methodology of natural science, though we may also discuss some issues in the philosophy of the social sciences. Most of the issues presented revolve around two major debates in the philosophy of science: (1) the dispute between Kuhn and Popper about theory change (2) disagreements between positivist (or instrumentalist) and realist conceptions of science. Modern philosophy of science has become closely linked with the history of science. The course will reflect this by considering how well major developments in the history of science fit proposed methodological rules about how science ought to proceed. The Copernican Revolution in astronomy will be used as a case-study. 1 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES The main aims of this module are: • to introduce students to the debate about theory-change in science, deriving from the work of Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend and Lakatos • to help students acquire an understanding of some important problems in the philosophy of science (concerning the topics of: explanation, observation, scientific realism, and the nature of laws) • to encourage students to enter into serious engagement with some of the major problems in the philosophy of science. There is a great deal of material to be covered in this course. The philosophy of science is a large area, with many specialist branches (e.g. philosophy of biology, philosophy of physics, probability and confirmation theory) — some of which we must omit altogether, or discuss only in a limited way. Most importantly, there are some difficult and unresolved problems (such as: How to judge the outcome of the Popper-Kuhn-Lakatos debate? or: Can we provide a general account of explanation? or: Is there an acceptable form of scientific realism?) that pose challenges which should stimulate students to active philosophical engagement in their own work. GENERAL READING • Modern classics in the philosophy of science: Kuhn, T.S. 1962: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Univ. of Chicago Press. Popper, K.R. 1963. Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge. Feyerabend, P.K. 1975: Against Method. London: New Left Books. Lipton, P. 1991/2004: Inference to the Best Explanation. London: Routledge. [If you want to buy any books, these are the choices most likely to be of lasting value.] • There are two leading periodicals you will probably wish to consult at some point: Philosophy of Science and the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (both to be found in Stack 4 at PER 105, though also easy to access through the Library's Ejournals). • Good general guides through the philosophy of science are: Chalmers, A.F. 1978/1982/1999: What Is This Thing Called Science?. Open University Press. Newton-Smith, W.H. 1981: The Rationality of Science. Routledge, London. Rosenberg, A. 2005 (3rd edn 2011): The Philosophy of Science: a contemporary introduction. Routledge, London. • Two good survey articles, both written by David Papineau, are: ‘Methodology: The elements of the philosophy of science’, ch.3 in A.C. Grayling (ed), Philosophy: a guide through the subject, Oxford University Press, 1995. ‘Philosophy of Science’, ch. 9 in N. Bunnin and E.P. Tsui-James (eds), The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy, Blackwell: Oxford, 1996. • Useful anthologies: 2 Boyd, R., Gasper, P. and Trout, J.D. (eds) 1991: The Philosophy of Science. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. [Boyd et al. 1991] at 142(P) Hacking, I. 1981: Scientific Revolutions. Oxford readings in philosophy. Oxford University Press. at 142(S) Papineau, D. 1996: The Philosophy of Science. Oxford readings in philosophy. Oxford University Press. [Papineau 1996] at 142(P) Ruben, D-H. 1993: Explanation. Oxford readings in philosophy. Oxford University Press. [Ruben 1993 —a very good collection, but sadly out of print.] Newton-Smith, W.H. (ed) 2000: A Companion to the Philosophy of Science. Oxford: Blackwell. Comprehensive and so somewhat encyclopaedic in treatment, but useful for purposes of reference. [Newton-Smith 2000] at 501 (C) • Hitchcock, C. 2004: Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Science. Oxford: Blackwell. This for-and-against collection has good sections on: thought-experiments, and predictive success as an argument for scientific realism. ASSESSMENT Assessment is by a combination of coursework and examination, 50% of the final grade being derived from two essays and 50% from a two hour examination paper. For essay titles and further details concerning coursework please consult the Coursework Summary. Examination: Students will be allowed two hours in which to answer two questions. The questions on the examination paper will be pre-released. 3 Syllabus Part 1: The Big Debate about Theory-Change (Popper-Kuhn-Lakatos) and the Copernican Revolution Topics and Reading: #1 Inductivism and the Problem of Induction #2 Popper’s Falsificationism #3 Kuhn on Normal and Revolutionary Science #4 The Copernican Revolution #5 Lakatos’ Methodology of Research Programmes #1 Inductivism and the Problem of Induction It’s important to realise that whether inductive reasoning provides the basic method of scientific theory-formation and whether induction can be rationally justified are distinct issues. For it seems clear that Inductivism (the view that theories are and should be arrived at by a process of inductive generalization of regularities discovered through observation) is an inadequate methodological view — because it confuses discovery and justification, and cannot do justice to the creativity involved in theorizing. But it also seems clear that we cannot do without using some forms of inductive reasoning (despite what Popper — see below — claims). Probably the main task in justifying induction is to give a good description of what inductive inferences are to be justified. Many philosophers think of induction as Induction by Simple Enumeration. This has the advantage of being a well-defined formal process, but is definitely too simplistic as an account of our actual inductive practices. Mill’s methods of experimental inquiry perhaps merit a section of their own. They are also of relevance to the sections on contrastive explanation and inference to the best explanation. The interest of Mill’s methods lies, practically, in the fact that they are directly related to experimental design; and, theoretically, in the possibility that they provide a way of approaching inductive reasoning that does not take enumerative generalization as the basic or primary case of induction. See also the sections on Goodman’s Paradox and Inference to the Best Explanation for further attempts to characterise defensible forms of inductive inference. Further Reading Russell, B.1912. The Problems of Philosophy, 33-8. Reprinted in Swinburne R ed, The Justification of Induction, 19-25. A classic statement. Chalmers, A.F. What Is This Thing Called Science?, ch 2, 12-19. Will, FL.1947. Will the future be like the past?. Mind 56: 332-47. Edwards, P.1949. Russell’s doubts about induction. Mind 58: 141-63. Reprinted in Swinburne R ed, The Justification of Induction, 26-47. Strawson, P.F. 1952 Introduction to Logical Theory, ch 9.II The "justification" of induction, 248-63. Ayer, A.J. Probability and Evidence, ch 1 The legacy of Hume Harman, G. 1965. The inference to the best explanation. Philosophical Review 74, pp.88-95. Popper, K.R.1963. Conjectures and Refutations, paper 10 4 Popper, K.R. 1972. Objective Knowledge, ch 1 Blackburn. S. Reason and Prediction, ch 1. (against Strawson and Edwards!) Stove, D.C. 1986. The Rationality of Induction Mill, J.S. 1843. A System of Logic: Ratiocinative and Inductive, BkIII Ch.VIII ‘Of the Four Methods of Experimental Inquiry’ [The first edition of Mill’s A System of Logic was published in March 1843. He introduced a large number of revisions and corrections, working through to an 8th edition in 1872. The best modern text is to be found in Volumes VII-VIII of the Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, ed. J.M. Robson, University of Toronto/Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1973. You can find it in the Library at 136 (Mill).] Scarre. G. Mill on induction and scientific method, in J. Skorupski ed., The Cambridge Companion to Mill, Cambridge UP: 1998, pp.112-38 #2 Popper’s Falsificationism According to Popper, a theory is only scientific if it is falsifiable. This is his famous Demarcation Criterion, which is intended to differentiate genuine science from both metaphysics and “pseudo-science”. Popperian falsificationism has several important merits: it accounts for the emphasis on testability in scientific inquiry; it offers a plausible diagnosis of what’s wrong with certain theories; it promises an account of the rational and progressive nature of science; and it spares us many of the problems and intricacies of confirmation theory. There are, however, several serious objections to Popper’s position. A particularly important one concerns the role of auxiliary hypotheses in scientific theorizing. I shall refer to it as the Duhemian point (although it is more often — and quite inaccurately — called “the Duhem-Quine Thesis”), after Pierre Duhem. Note that this objection seems to have been independently discovered by Lakatos and Putnam. Further Reading Popper, K.R. 1963. Conjectures and Refutations, first paper Popper, K.R. 1972. Objective Knowledge, ch 1 Putnam, H. 1974. The ‘corroboration’ of theories. In Schilpp PA ed, The Philosophy of Karl Popper Vol I, 221-40.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Imre Lakatos's Philosophy of Mathematics
    Imre Lakatos’s Philosophy of Mathematics Gábor Kutrovátz Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest e-mail: [email protected] Introduction Imre Lakatos (1922-1974) is known world-wide by at least two different groups of philosophers. For the philosophers of science, he was a great defender of scientific rationality: he gave up the idea of ‘instant’ methodological rationality and substituted it with the historiographical methodology based on the notion of ‘rational reconstruction’. For the philosophers of mathematics, he was a great attacker at the formalist school, and instead of the formal-axiomatic features of mathematics he put the emphasis on heuristics, the historical processes of theory building and conceptualisation. These two ‘incarnations’ of Lakatos are rarely discussed within a unique philosophical framework, and not without reason: Lakatos himself never really tried to harmonise these two fields of interest. There are signs showing that he intended to build a common ground for them, but perhaps this project could not even take a very definite shape before his early death. In this paper I shall concentrate on only one of these topics: his philosophy of mathematics; and my primary aim is to give a brief and coherent summary of his ideas concerning this field. It should be noted, however, that his philosophy of mathematics and that of science obviously have some characteristics in common, since they were contrived by the same man, and not at a great temporal distance in his academic life, when he was under very similar intellectual influences. My secondary purpose therefore is to build this summary in a way that is in accordance with his general philosophical theory of science, that is, to give a mild ‘rational reconstruction’ of his ideas.1 The context of Lakatos’s philosophy of mathematics In the Acknowledgements of his doctoral thesis wrote on the philosophy of mathematics, Lakatos mentions three authors as the most influential sources for his philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Phil. 4400 Notes #1: the Problem of Induction I. Basic Concepts
    Phil. 4400 Notes #1: The problem of induction I. Basic concepts: The problem of induction: • Philosophical problem concerning the justification of induction. • Due to David Hume (1748). Induction: A form of reasoning in which a) the premises say something about a certain group of objects (typically, observed objects) b) the conclusion generalizes from the premises: says the same thing about a wider class of objects, or about further objects of the same kind (typically, the unobserved objects of the same kind). • Examples: All observed ravens so far have been The sun has risen every day for the last 300 black. years. So (probably) all ravens are black. So (probably) the sun will rise tomorrow. Non-demonstrative (non-deductive) reasoning: • Reasoning that is not deductive. • A form of reasoning in which the premises are supposed to render the conclusion more probable (but not to entail the conclusion). Cogent vs. Valid & Confirm vs. Entail : ‘Cogent’ arguments have premises that confirm (render probable) their conclusions. ‘Valid’ arguments have premises that entail their conclusions. The importance of induction: • All scientific knowledge, and almost all knowledge depends on induction. • The problem had a great influence on Popper and other philosophers of science. Inductive skepticism: Philosophical thesis that induction provides no justification for ( no reason to believe) its conclusions. II. An argument for inductive skepticism 1. There are (at most) 3 kinds of knowledge/justified belief: a. Observations b. A priori knowledge c. Conclusions based on induction 2. All inductive reasoning presupposes the “Inductive Principle” (a.k.a. the “uniformity principle”): “The course of nature is uniform”, “The future will resemble the past”, “Unobserved objects will probably be similar to observed objects” 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Kuhn Versus Lakatos, Or Paradigms Ver Su S Research Programmes in the History of Economics
    [HOPE Vol. 7 (1975) No. 41 Kuhn versus Lakatos, or paradigms ver su s research programmes in the history of economics Mark Blaug In the 1950’s and 1960’s economists learned their methodology from Popper. Not that many of them read Popper. Instead, they read Friedman, and perhaps few of them realized that Friedman is simply Popper-with-a-twist applied to economics. To be sure, Friedman was criticized, but the “Essay on the Methodology of Positive Economics” nevertheless survived to become the one arti- cle on methodology that virtually every economist has read at some stage in his career. The idea that unrealistic “assumptions” are nothing to worry about, provided that the theory deduced from them culminates in falsifiable predictions, carried conviction to economists long inclined by habit and tradition to take a purely instrumentalist view of their subject. All that is almost ancient history, however. The new wave is not Popper’s “falsifiability” but Kuhn’s “paradigms.” Again, it is un- likely that many economists read The Structure oj Scientific Revolu- tions (1962). Nevertheless, appeal to paradigmatic reasoning quickly became a regular feature of controversies in economics and “paradigm” is now the byword of every historian of economic thought.’ Recently, however, some commentators have expressed misgivings about Kuhnian methodology applied to economics, throw- ing doubt in particular on the view that “scientific revolutions” characterize the history of economic thought.* With these doubts I heartily concur. I will argue that the term “paradigm” ought to be banished from economic literature, unless surrounded by inverted commas. Suitably qualified, however, the term retains a function in the historical exposition of economic doctrines as a reminder of the Copyright 1976 by Mark Blaug MARKBLAUG is Head of the Research Unit in the Economics of Education at the University of London.
    [Show full text]
  • Induction, Deduction, and the Scientific Method
    INDUCTION, DEDUCTION, AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AN ECLECTIC OVERVIEW OF THE PRACTICE OF SCIENCE IRVING ROTHCHILD Emeritus Professor of Reproductive Biology Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine Cleveland, Ohio © 2006 by the Society for the Study of Reproduction, Inc. CONTENTS ABSTRACT 1 INTRODUCTION 1 INDUCTION AND DEDUCTION 2 Etymology 2 Definitions 2 Induction 2 Deduction 3 THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD 3 BEING A SCIENTIST 4 Making Observations 4 Point of View 5 Asking the Right Question 6 Theorizing 6 The theory (or finding) that questions authority 7 Defending the controversial theory or finding 8 Eurekas 8 Experimentation 9 The failed experiment 9 Publishing 10 Statistics 10 Recognition 10 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 10 REFERENCES 11 © 2006 by the Society for the Study of Reproduction, Inc. © 2006 by the Society for the Study of Reproduction, Inc. INDUCTION, DEDUCTION, AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AN ECLECTIC OVERVIEW OF THE PRACTICE OF SCIENCE IRVING ROTHCHILD* Emeritus Professor of Reproductive Biology Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine Cleveland, Ohio ABSTRACT: Science is a never-ending, always changing process through which we learn to know the material nature of the universe. Science does not deal with nonmaterial entities such as gods, for there is no way their existence can be either proved or disproved. No single, identifiable method applies to all branches of science; the only method, in fact, is whatever the scientist can use to find the solution to a problem. This includes induction, a form of logic that identifies similarities within a group of particulars, and deduction, a form of logic that identifies a particular by its resemblance to a set of accepted facts.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    M889 - FULLER TEXT.qxd 4/4/07 11:21 am Page 1 Phil's G4 Phil's G4:Users:phil:Public: PHIL'S JO Introduction Science and Technology Studies (STS) is an interdisciplinary field usually defined as the confluence of three fields with distinct intellec- tual lineages and orientations: history of science, philosophy of science, and sociology of science. All three have been marginal to their named disciplines, because surprisingly few of the original practitioners of history, philosophy, or sociology of science were primarily trained in history, philosophy, or sociology. Rather, they were natural or exact scientists who came to be disenchanted with the social entanglements of their chosen fields of study. In effect, they fell victim to an intellec- tual bait-and-switch, whereby the reasons they entered science failed to explain science’s continued support in the wider society. This point often makes STS appear more critical than many of its practitioners intend it to be. STS researchers are virtually in agreement that people tend to like science for the wrong reasons (i.e. they are too easily taken in by its hype), but relatively few STS researchers would thereby con- clude that there are no good reasons to like science. There have been three generations of STS research, and each tells a different story of disenchantment with science. First, the logical pos- itivists, including Karl Popper, were keen to protect the theoretical base of science from the technological devastation that was wrought in its name during World War I. Next, Thomas Kuhn and his con- temporaries on both sides of the Atlantic – including Paul Feyerabend, Imre Lakatos, Stephen Toulmin, Derek de Solla Price – tried to do the same vis-à-vis World War II, though, more than the previous genera- tion, they relied on science’s past for normative guidance, largely out of a realization of technology’s contemporary role in scaling up the sci- entific enterprise and giving it forward momentum.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Theory and the Problem of Explanation. James Wayne Lemke Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School 1978 Political Theory and the Problem of Explanation. James Wayne Lemke Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses Recommended Citation Lemke, James Wayne, "Political Theory and the Problem of Explanation." (1978). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 3249. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/3249 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 79031*4 LEMKE» JAMES WAYNE POLITICAL THEORY AND THE PROBLEM OF EXPLANATION. THE LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COL., P H .D ., 1978 University Microfilms International 3o o n , z e e s r o a d , a n n a r b o r , m i 4eioe 0 1978 JAMES WAYNE LEMKE ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Political Theory and the Problem of Explanation A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Department of Political Science by James Wayne Lerrike B.A., Southeastern Louisiana University, 1969 August, 1978 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writing of this dissertation, to say nothing of its completion, has been an enjoyable and rewarding enterprise. My good feelings about this experience are in large measure the result of the support and assistance of a number of people.
    [Show full text]
  • Science Without Inductivism ( Karl Popper’S View )
    Science without inductivism ( Karl Popper’s view ) Ningombam Bupenda Meitei (St.Stephen’s College), Department of Philosophy, University of Delhi Abstract The paper aims to expound on the issue of science being different from non science or pre- science in the form of the scientific methodology used. Popper’s method of falsifiability ensures the aim of science to be successful. The aim of science which also needs a critical attitude, can enable scientific progress by rejecting inductivism as its scientific methodology. Popper’s view on what the aim of science is and why and how inductivism fails in the case of science, along with examples from history of science besides its impact on philosophical foundations of science, has been stressed in the paper. Introduction Science and its significance grew rapidly due to Einstein’s theory of relativity and its difference from the nature of the works of Freud and Adler which made Popper to expound on the notion of allegedly scientific psychoanalysis of Freud and the revolutionary work on relativity of Einstein which was also experimentally proved by Eddington in 1919 showing the deflection of light by solid massive gravitational bodies. The debate of what science is and what non science could be, the notion of what science should do or can do or precisely ,the aim of science have made the 20th century a breeding moment of thoughts for philosophical foundations of science ,thereby influencing the development of philosophy of science. Popper who is also influenced by Hume’s skepticism on inductivism has made his notion of being scientific very strong in terms of being falsifiability through repeated tests.
    [Show full text]
  • “YOU MUST REMEMBER THIS” Abraham (“Abe”) Edel
    MATERIAL FOR “YOU MUST REMEMBER THIS” Abraham (“Abe”) Edel (6 December 1908 – 22 June 2007) “Twenty-Seven Uses of Science in Ethics,” 7/2/67 Abraham Edel, In Memoriam, by Peter Hare and Guy Stroh Abraham Edel, 1908-2007 Abraham Edel was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on December 6, 1908. Raised in Yorkton, Canada with his older brother Leon who would become a biographer of Henry James, Edel studied Classics and Philosophy at McGill University, earning a BA in 1927 and an MA in 1928. He continued his education at Oxford where, as he recalled, “W.D. Ross and H.A. Prichard were lecturing in ethics, H.W.B. Joseph on Plato, and the influence of G. E. Moore and Bertrand Russell extended from Cambridge. Controversy on moral theory was high. The same was true of epistemology, where Prichard posed realistic epistemology against Harold Joachim who was defending Bradley and Bosanquet against the metaphysical realism of Cook Wilson.” He received a BA in Litterae Humaniores from Oxford in 1930. In that year he moved to New York City for doctoral studies at Columbia University, and in 1931 began teaching at City College, first as an assistant to Morris Raphael Cohen. F.J.E. Woodbridge directed his Columbia dissertation, Aristotle’s Theory of the Infinite (1934). This monograph and two subsequent books on Aristotle were influenced by Woodbridge’s interpretation of Aristotle as a philosophical naturalist. Although his dissertation concerned ancient Greek philosophy, he was much impressed by research in the social sciences at Columbia, and the teaching of Cohen at City College showed him how philosophical issues lay at the root of the disciplines of psychology, sociology, history, as well as the natural sciences.
    [Show full text]
  • The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes Philosophical Papers Volume I
    The methodology of scientific research programmes Philosophical Papers Volume i IMRE LAKATOS EDITED BY JOHN WORRALL AND GREGORY CURRIE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UB der LMU München, on 13 Apr 2020 at 02:49:26, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621123 cambridge university press Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo, Delhi, Dubai, Tokyo, Mexico City Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521280310 © Imre Lakatos Memorial Appeal fund and the Estate of Imre Lakatos 1978 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 1978 First paperback edition 1980 Reprinted 1984, 1986, 1989, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1999 A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library isbn 978-0-521-21644-9 Hardback isbn 978-0-521-28031-0 Paperback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. Information regarding prices, travel timetables, and other factual information given in this work is correct at the time of first printing but Cambridge University Press does not guarantee the accuracy of such information thereafter.
    [Show full text]
  • In-Between Science and Religion Dominic Balestra Fordham University, [email protected]
    Fordham University Masthead Logo DigitalResearch@Fordham Hermeneutic and Phenomenological Philosophies Research Resources of Science 2002 In-Between Science and Religion Dominic Balestra Fordham University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://fordham.bepress.com/phil_research Part of the Philosophy of Science Commons Recommended Citation Balestra, Dominic, "In-Between Science and Religion" (2002). Research Resources. 44. https://fordham.bepress.com/phil_research/44 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Hermeneutic and Phenomenological Philosophies of Science at DigitalResearch@Fordham. It has been accepted for inclusion in Research Resources by an authorized administrator of DigitalResearch@Fordham. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DOMINIC BALESTRA IN-BETWEEN SCIENCE AND RELIGION 1. METHODOLOGICAL DEMARCATION: A WANING WALL Stripped of its seventeenth and eighteenth century Deistic, if not theistic, sensibility, science entered the twentieth century as agnostic and indifferent, if not outrightly antagonistic, toward religion. Religion was often viewed as the enemy of modern science; and its theology was presumed to be intellectually vacuous. “Real science” was clearly understood to be objective, empirical and rational. It bore no relationship to theology, none of any cognitive import – except perhaps to eliminate theology as contributing toward any understanding of the cosmos. This view of the relationship between science and religion was further reinforced by logical empiricism. In the latter’s view science aimed to establish empirically testable, generalized explanations of observable but problematic phenomena. Such phenomena might be freely falling bodies or the deviation of a planet from the expected path of its usual orbit. As the phrase “logical empiricism” suggests, in its view the objectivity of science rested with an evidential base of empirical facts, facts which were independent of any hypothesized theory under question and available to all through sense observation.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Styles of Thought in Science: Examples Applied to the History Of
    ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; and give theories of vera causa wide berth, for good Some Styles of reason. They are leery of any attempt to extrapolate causes from observations, conÞning themselves to Thought in Science: laws and the extraordinarily rare causal theory. The 1859 publication of DarwinÕs On the Origin Examples Applied of the Species is a watershed event, in the neutrally geographic sense of that wordÑrecognized regardless to the History of of how you feel about it. Subsequently, scientists established functionalism, based on the adaptation Evolution of critters to their niches via natural selection, as the dominant paradigm in evolutionary biology for virtually all of the 20th century and still going strong by Erik Rau into the 21st. Functionalism explains diversity among species of critters through adaptation to either the In the vastly cluttered secondhand shop of tasks those critters perform or the environment philosophical ideas, there is a large but somewhat they live in or both. Though he wasnÕt the Þrst to empty cardboard box labeled ÔSCIENCE.Õ A few terms do so, Darwin clearly propounded the supremacy rattle around inside, some of which look very similar of adaptation over conservation of structure in to each other. When these terms are unpacked and natural selection: ÔHence every detail of structure in tried out on a few actual theories, however, we begin every living creature (making some little allowance to see how they might work. What follows is a short for the direct action of physical conditions) may discussion of some often-used but little-identiÞed be viewed, either as having been of special use to epistemological terms in the philosophy of science, some ancestral form, or as being now of special use and their roles illustrated through part of the history to the descendants of that form,Õ (Darwin 200) and of evolution.
    [Show full text]
  • International Journal of Science and Technology (STECH) Bahir Dar- Ethiopia Vol
    IAARR 57 International Journal of Science and Technology Vol. 7 (1) February, 2018 International Journal of Science and Technology (STECH) Bahir Dar- Ethiopia Vol. 7 (1), S/No15, February, 2018: 57-71 ISSN: 2225-8590 (Print) ISSN 2227-5452 (Online) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/stech.v7i1.5 SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION, INCOMMENSURABILITY AND TRUTH IN THEORIES: OBJECTION TO KUHN’S PERSPECTIVE IHEJIRIKA, CARDINAL, PhD DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF PORT HARCOURT, NIGERIA PHONE: +2348028279646 E-mail: [email protected] ……………………………………………………………………….. EMEDOLU, CHRISTIAN C., PhD DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF PORT HARCOURT, NIGERIA PHONE: +2348035517505 E-mail: [email protected] …………………………………………………………………………………………… ABSTRACT This is to revaluate the truth-content of scientific theory in the event of scientific revolution. In this paper, we argued that the radical views on incommensurability offered, especially, by Thomas S. Kuhn (shared by Paul Feyerabend, and others) do not actually undermine either the realist or cumulative stature of science. The core of our discussion is, ultimately, to provide a clearer and broader picture of the general characteristics of scientific revolution or theory change. In doing this, the paper pinpoints the audacity behind this change and the nature of truth undergirding any emergent or overthrown scientific theory. The paper has some rebounding echoes of the realist and cumulative features of science while addressing the issue of the real character of theory change. Following some unique interpretations of scientific revolution, truth in science could still be redeemed in the face of theory change and Kuhnian Incommensurability Thesis. To this effect, the hermeneutical approach is considered most suitable in this paper.
    [Show full text]