DOCSLIB.ORG

To What Extent Can Philosophy Contribute to the Public Understanding of Science?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
To What Extent Can Philosophy Contribute to the Public Understanding of Science? ‘Sloppy Thinking’: To What Extent Can Philosophy Contribute to the Public Understanding of Science? Ben Trubody A thesis submitted to the University of Gloucestershire in accordance with the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Media, Arts and Technology Cheltenham September 2013 Abstract This thesis will address two questions: Does philosophy contribute to the ‘public understanding of science’ (PUoS), and if so, how? The popular public image of science is one of methodology. Science is a means for making true statements about the world, where we compare hypothesis with observation against the evidence. This then allows for a body of knowledge that guides further advancements and progress. Philosophy, however, seems to be antithetical to this. A popular notion is that philosophy is either what science was, or it deals with objects and ideas so intangible, that they have no real effect in the world. Either it is an outmoded way of doing science, or it is the preserve of armchair academics. In both cases the average person would be forgiven for thinking it had no relevance to them, and especially their ability to understand science. This thesis will look to challenge this relationship. Using hermeneutics, discourse-textual analysis and deconstruction, I present two interpretations of science and philosophy. These two interpretations I will call the ‘methodological’ and ‘historical’ approach. The ‘methodological’ approach is to understand science as a collection of principles or rules that, if followed, will produce true statements about the world. An example of such a principle that intersected both philosophy and science is ‘falsification’ as understood through the ‘problem of demarcation’ (PoD). The irrelevance of philosophy to science is fortified by the constant failure to produce fixed rules for what makes one thing scientific and another not. The ‘historical’ approach is to understand the actions of scientists as historical events. So rather than ask ‘what is science?’ we might ask, ‘what does it mean to act scientifically?’ I will argue philosophy can be of use in overcoming the antagonism between understanding a methodological question historically and a historical question methodologically. Firstly, I give an uncontroversial reading of the PoD, as argued by Karl Popper, who represents the ‘methodological’ view and oppose this to the ‘historical’ approach of Paul Feyerabend. Due to the dominance of the interpretation of science as a methodology, I argue that historical critiques, like Feyerabend’s, become nonsensical when understood as methodological substitutes. This is what I call the ‘received view’ of what both Popper and Feyerabend had to say on science. Here, Popper fails to solve the PoD and Feyerabend appears to deny the method, objectivity or rationality of science. Next, using ideas inspired by Heidegger, I reverse those roles by presenting a ‘methodological’ and ‘historical’ reading of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn. I develop two types of language, which I call ‘about’ and ‘of’ language that map on to the methodological and historical distinctions. Using this method I construct two contradictory readings of the text, but unlike the Popper- Feyerabend antagonism, we see how the historical approach is the more fertile interpretation. One version, which I call the ‘strong’ reading, has Kuhn as a relativist, irrationalist or anti-science, which is important if this is the ‘received view’ of Kuhn. This reading carries political weight with ‘interest groups’ who may wish to undermine the epistemic authority of science. That same reading can be used to discredit Kuhn/ philosophy of science, and by extension philosophy as a worthwhile instrument for understanding science. The other version, which I call the ‘weak’ reading, has Kuhn as a supporter and defender of science, but it also resolves old philosophical disputes by framing the problem in a different way. This will not only problematize any notion of a dominant interpretation, but it gives good grounds why one cannot be relativist or irrationalist about ‘truth’. Thus it defends the epistemic authority of science, and also gives philosophy a valuable role in public thinking about science. Declaration I declare that the work in this thesis was carried out in accordance with the regulations of the University of Gloucestershire and is original except where indicated by specific reference in the text. No part of the thesis has been submitted as part of any other academic award. The thesis has not been presented to any other educational institution in the United Kingdom or overseas. Any views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and in no way represent those of the University. Signed…………………………………. Date……………………………….. Acknowledgements Firstly, I wish to express my gratitude to my supervisors, Dr William Large, for his continuous support, discussion, and feedback, which has gone way beyond institutional requirements and my expectations. I would also like to extend my appreciation to Dr David Webster for his patience in waiting for the final drafts and input into the finished article. I dedicate this work to those that have helped guide and encourage me back into education and achieve something that has always been an ambition of mine. In particular I wish to thank my parents, for their example, belief in my ability and encouragement to try for something better. Finally, I would like to thank my girlfriend Phailin for being understanding and generous with her cooking and patience. Table of Contents Table of Contents …………………vi Chapter One ……………….…1 Introduction: Science, Philosophy and Society ……………….…1 1.1 Introduction ……………….…1 1.2 The Thesis ……………….…6 1.3 Is to be Scientific to be Anti -Philosophy of Science? ………………...12 1.4 Philosophy in the Public Understanding of Science ………………...16 1.5 The Harvard/Conant Group ………………...18 1.6 Scientific Literacy ………………...20 1.7 Rationale and Methodology of Thesis ………………...22 Chapter Two ………………...26 The Public Understanding of Science ………………...26 2.1 A Brief History of the Public Understanding of Science (PUoS) ………………...26 2.2 The Deficit Model ………………...30 2.3 The Contextualist Model ………………...33 2.4 Problems with the Problem of Demarcation ………………...37 Chapter Three ………………...44 Karl Popper and Falsification ………………...44 3.1 Karl Popper ………………...44 3.2 Popper and the Logical Positivists ………………...47 3.3 Logical and Methodological Falsification ………………...50 3.4 Degrees of Falsifiability ………………...52 3.5 Falsification of What? ………………...55 3.6 Popper, Idol ………………...60 Chapter Four ……………...…68 Paul Feyerabend: Against Method ……………...…68 4.1 Paul Feyerabend ………………...68 4.2 Against Method ………………...71 vi 4.3 Against a Universal Neutral Observation Language ……………...…78 4.4 Against Feyerabend ………………...81 4.5 Conclusion ……………..….88 Chapter Five ………………...96 The Role of Philosophy ………………...96 5.1 The Effects of Philosophical ‘Literacy’ or Different ……………...…96 Worldviews? 5.2 The Smolin-Susskind Debate ……………….101 5.3 Richard Feynman on Science ……………….103 5.4 The Situation so Far ……………….106 5.5 Thomas Kuhn ……………….109 5.6 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions ……………….112 5.7 Martin Heidegger: An Introduction ……………….116 5.8 Summary ……………….120 Chapter Six ……………….123 Heidegger’s Influence …………….…123 6.1 My Route to Heidegger ……………….123 6.2 From Kuhn to Heidegger ……………….127 6.3 The Critical Reception of Heidegger …………….…131 6.4 The Post-Positivistic Philosophy of Science …………….…133 6.5 Ontological Difference: Methodological and Historical …………….…135 Interpretations 6.6 Fundamental and Regional Ontology …………….…136 6.7 Categorical and Lived Space …………….…138 6.8 ‘About’ and ‘Of’ languages …………….…142 Chapter Seven ……………….151 The Strong Reading ……………….151 7.1 Kuhn and Structure - The Strong Reading ……………….151 7.2 Framing the Strong Reading ……………….152 vii 7.3 The General Structure of Structure ……………….159 7.4 Paradigms ……………….160 7.5 Normal and Revolutionary Science ……………….172 7.6 Incommensurability ……………….181 7.7 Introducing the Weak Reading ……………….192 Chapter Eight ……………….195 The Weak Reading ……………….195 8.1 Kuhn and Structure – Recap of the Strong Reading ……………….195 8.2 The Weak Reading ……………….196 8.3 Framing the Weak Reading ……………….201 8.4 A General Structure of Structure ……………….205 8.5 Paradigm ……………….208 8.6 Normal and Revolutionary Science ……………….226 8.7 Incommensurability ……………….242 Chapter Nine ……………….253 Conclusion ……………….253 9.1 Concluding Remarks ……………….253 Bibliography ……………….261 viii Chapter One Introduction: Science, Philosophy and Society 1.1 – Introduction This thesis places itself at a point of convergence between several issues, emanating from sociology, education, politics, history and philosophy of science. My main concern is with the dialogue between science as a practice and what is necessary for a person to know in order to have a fair understanding of that practice. What concerns me with this dialogue is the apparent irrelevance philosophy has in contributing to this debate in the public sphere. Public understanding of science and much of science education tend to promote science as a ‘method’, where we can say uncontroversial things like ‘knowledge and understanding in science are rooted in evidence’.1 There is absolutely no denying that science is successful at what it does and it does so because of its methods. On the other hand ‘philosophy’ appears to make little contribution, since it tirelessly fails to make progress in its subject areas, and worse it has led
Load more

Recommended publications
  • New Styles of Reasoning in Contemporary Philosophy and Science
    E-LOGOS – Electronic Journal for Philosophy 2020, Vol. 27(2) 34–45 ISSN 1211-0442 (DOI 10.18267/j.e-logos.477), Peer-reviewed article Journal homepage: e-logos.vse.cz New Styles of Reasoning in Contemporary Philosophy and Science Jitka Paitlová1 Abstract: The paper discusses the unexpected trends in the most modern forms of philosophy and science. The traditional differences in the roles of philosophy and science can be traced back to Kant: natural sciences refer to possible experience; philosophy as metaphysics does not affect experience at all. Today, there are very different trends. Some physical theories (such as string theory) have a highly theoretical character and cannot be proved by empirical experiments. A new approach has been developed in philosophy too: experimental philosophy, which makes use of empirical data to inform research on philosophical questions. Are these approaches just contradictions in terms or rather new styles of reasoning? The goal is not a deep analysis of x-phi or string theory but a reflection on the context between tradition and new trends in philosophy and science which are still rather marginal but may play an important role in the future. Keywords: experimental philosophy, metaphysics, science, string theory, objectivity, intuition. 1 University of West Bohemia in Pilsen, Sedláčkova 19, Plzeň, Czech Republic, email: [email protected]. Funded by GAČR 18-08239S "Objectivity: An Experimental Approach to the Traditional Philosophical Question". Volume 27 | Number 02 | 2020 E-LOGOS – ELECTRONIC JOURNAL FOR PHILOSOPHY 34 1 Introduction A few years ago, a new approach was formed in philosophy that uses a philosophical method not merely intellectually or speculatively, but actually in the sense of empirical experiments (Knobe, 2004; Sosa, 2007; Knobe & Nichols, 2008).2 This new approach is metaphorically described as a revolutionary movement that burns the armchairs of traditional philosophers who were engaged in pure thought without any connection to the outside (empirical) world.
    [Show full text]
  • Post-Empirical’ Science and Determining Future Directions
    Controversy in High Energy Physics: ‘Post-empirical’ science and determining future directions Sophie Ritson 11.6.2018 The String Wars “science” (Duff, 2013, p. 185) “speculative metaphysics” (Richter, 2006, pp. 8-9) “pseudoscience” (Krauss, 2005) “beautiful” (Schwarz, 1996, p. 698) “ugly” (Woit, 2006d, p. 265) “a final theory” (Weinberg, 1993, p. 212) “catastrophic failure” (Smolin, 2006b, p. 170). the debates have “raised deep questions about the very nature of physics as a discipline” (Galison, 1995b, p. 403). The String Wars • 1986 ‘Desperately Seeking Superstrings’ published in Physics Today Ginsparg and Glashow • 1999 The Elegant Universe written by Brian Greene • 2003/4 The Anthropic landscape • 2004 ‘Not Even Wrong’ the blog is launched by String Theory Critic Peter Woit • November 8 2005 Laurence Krauss writes an essay in the New York Times titled: Science and Religion Share Fascination in Things Unseen’ • 2006 Two books critical of string theory are published by Lee Smolin and Peter Woit • 2012 Dawid publishes String Theory and the Scientific Method • 2014 Editorial in Nature titled ‘Scientific Method: Defend the integrity of physics’by Ellis and Silk • 2014 ‘Why Trust a Theory Conference’ in Munich A post empirical era? • From the philosophical literature • on the basis of a lack of empiricism in string theory • the string theory debates are held up as evidence of emergent conceptualisation of science This has led several historians and philosophers of science to ask if the widespread belief in string theory constitutes a new post empirical era for science The Demarcation Problem (according to Popper) “…since the autumn 1919 when I first begin to grapple with the problem, “When should a theory be ranked as scientific?" or "Is there a criterion for the scientific character or status of a theory?” The problem which troubled me at the time was neither, "When is a theory true?" nor "When is a theory acceptable?" my problem was different.
    [Show full text]
  • 8.1 Tacit Knowledge in Theoretical Physics
    e Sociology of eoretical Physics by u gnacio eyes alindo Supervised by Prof. Harold Maurice Collins & Dr. Robert John Evans is thesis is submitted to the Cardiff University School of Social Sciences for the degree of Doctor in Philosophy (Social Sciences) eptember 2011 Declaration is work has not previously been accepted in substance for any degree and is not con- currently submitted in candidature for any degree. Signature Date Statement 1 is thesis is being submitted in partial fullment of the requirements for the degree of PhD. Signature Date Statement 2 is thesis is the result of my own independent work and investigation, except where otherwise stated. Other sources are acknowledged by explicit references. Signature Date Statement 3 I hereby give consent for my thesis, if accepted, to be available for photocopying and for inter-library loan, and for the title and summary to be immediately made available to outside organisations. Signature Date iii hen heard e learn’d tronomer; hen e proofs, e gures, were ranged in columns before me; hen w shown e charts and e diagrams, to add, divide, and meure em; hen , sitting, heard e tronomer, where he leured wi much applae in e leure-room, ow soon, unaccounble, became tired and sick; i ring and gliding out, wander’d off by myself, n e mystical mot night-air, and om time to time, ook’d up in perfe silence e stars. —Walt Whitman v Acknowledgements is thesis would not have been possible, as always, without the endless support of my father and elf-mother, and my dearest sister Marranela.
    [Show full text]
  • NOT EVEN WRONG Tells a Fascinating and Complex Story About Human
    NOT EVEN WRONG tells a fascinating and complex story about human beings and their attempts to come to grips with perhaps the most intellectually demanding puzzle of all: how does the universe work at its most fundamental level? The story begins with an historical survey of the experimental and theoretical developments that led to the creation of the phenomenally successful 'Standard Model' of particle physics around 1975. But, despite its successes, the Standard Model left a number of key questions unanswered and physicists therefore continued in their attempt to find a powerful, all-encompassing theory. Now, more than twenty years after coming onto the scene, and despite a total lack of any success in going beyond the Standard Model, it is superstring theory that dominates particle physics. How this extraordinary situation has come about is a central concern of this book. As Peter Woit explains, the term 'superstring theory' really refers not to a well-defined theory, but to unrealised hopes that one might exist. As a result, this is a 'theory' that makes no predictions, not even wrong ones, and this very lack of falsifiability has allowed it not only to survive but to flourish. The absence of experimental evidence is at the core of this controversial situation in physics - a situation made worse by a refusal to challenge conventional thinking and an unwillingness to evaluate honestly the arguments both for and against string theory. To date, only the arguments of the theory's advocates have received much publicity. NOT EVEN WRONG will provide readers with another side of this story, allowing them to decide for themselves where the truths of the matter may lie and to follow an important and compelling story as it continues to unfold.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright by Jesús Rubén Martínez 2011
    Copyright by Jesús Rubén Martínez 2011 The Dissertation Committee for Jesús Rubén Martínez Certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: The Adventures of Luis Alvarez: Identity Politics in the Making of an American Science Committee: Bruce J. Hunt, Supervisor Alberto Martínez Tracie Matysik Michael Stoff Mark Raizen The Adventures of Luis Alvarez: Identity Politics in the Making of an American Science by Jesús Rubén Martínez, B.A., M.A. Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin December 2011 Dedication To my parents, Rubén and Angelina, for not keeping a language of secrets. Acknowledgements This dissertation would not have been possible without the guidance of professors Bruce Hunt and Alberto Martínez. Professors Neil Foley and Sahotra Sarkar helped spark two chapters that eventually formed the kernels for this work. David Kessler at the Berkeley Bancroft Library and Becky Willard at the University of Texas Pickle Center both helped me work through a tremendous amount of raw materials. Finally, I would like to thank Eleanor Fluharty for putting up with a dissertation writer. v The Adventures of Luis Alvarez: Identity Politics in the Making of an American Science Publication No._____________ Jesús Rubén Martínez, Ph.D. The University of Texas at Austin, 2011 Supervisor: Bruce J. Hunt In the 1930s and 1940s, American atomic physicists developed an identity akin to those ethnic identities developed by Chicanos and African Americans in the 1960s.
    [Show full text]
  • 10 Physicists and Ph
    Physicists and Philosophers Hold Peace Talks The Atlantic, Dec 22, 2015 http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/12/physics-philosophy- string-theory/421569/ Physicists typically think they “need philosophers and historians of science like birds need ornithologists,” the Nobel laureate David Gross told a roomful of philosophers, historians, and physicists in Munich, Germany, paraphrasing Richard Feynman. But desperate times call for desperate measures. Fundamental physics faces a problem, Gross explained—one dire enough to call for outsiders’ perspectives. “I’m not sure that we don’t need each other at this point in time,” he said. It was the opening session of a three-day workshop, held on December 7 in a Romanesque-style lecture hall at Ludwig Maximilian University (LMU Munich) one year after George Ellis and Joe Silk, two white-haired physicists now sitting in the front row, called for such a conference in an incendiary opinion piece in Nature. One hundred attendees had descended on a land with a celebrated tradition in both physics and the philosophy of science to wage what Ellis and Silk declared a “battle for the heart and soul of physics.” The crisis, as Ellis and Silk tell it, is the wildly speculative nature of modern physics theories, which they say reflects a dangerous departure from the scientific method. Many of today’s theorists—chief among them the proponents of string theory and the multiverse hypothesis—appear convinced of their ideas on the grounds that they are beautiful or logically compelling, despite the impossibility of testing them. Ellis and Silk accused these theorists of “moving the goalposts” of science and blurring the line between physics and pseudoscience.
    [Show full text]