S n

SCIENCE, OF question of what makes something a living organism, would turn out to be merely questions of degrees of as an autonomous subject is a complexity and not specifically biological at all. In product of the twentieth century. Its development addition, the moral issues that pertain to humans and stemmed from the great intellectual challenges of the animals because of their psychological characteristics quantum and relativity theories of physics, but philosophical would be approached very differently if psychological issues surrounding such theories as psychoanalysis, evolu- properties were considered to be unreal or merely tionary theory, Marxist and capitalist economics, and the disguised biological properties. Differences between the of human experimentation along with the enormous- sciences are methodologically crucial in this respect. For ly increased importance of science as an intellectual example, a great deal of medical research cannot enjoy the endeavor have led to a great expansion of the field. unlimited freedom of laboratory experimentation that is Work in philosophy of science tends to fall into two characteristic of physics simply because of the ethical approaches. The first sees science as a testing ground for constraints its subjects require. Moreover, the variability traditional philosophical problems. Chief among the of its subjects makes universal laws hard to formulate in traditional problems is this: Can we have any in distinction to, for example, astronomy. that is certain and in terms of which all other knowledge in the area can be justified (), or are all claims to knowledge uncertain ()? In the realm PREDECESSORS TO CONTEMPORARY of things that can be known by empirical investigation, it VIEWPOINTS would seem that science has the best claim to secure It was the logical positivists and logical empiricists of the knowledge. Philosophers of science have thus devoted a (1923–1936) and the Berlin school (1928– considerable amount of time to what kinds of scientific 1933) who succeeded in placing scientific issues near the methods are effective in producing such reliable knowl- heart of the philosophical enterprise. (A classic, albeit edge. In contrast, some philosophers have denied that sententious, presentation of the logical positivists’ views is science does actually produce a privileged body of in A. J. Ayer’s Language, , and , 1946 [1936].) knowledge and have argued that all scientific knowledge For philosophers such as Moritz Schlick (1882–1936), is a product of its historical and social context. (1891–1970), (1891– The second approach to philosophy of science focuses 1953), and Carl Hempel (1905–1997), all of whom had a on issues that are peculiar to sciences. Of scientific education, the task was to provide a foundation particular interest here is the possibility of reducing for genuine knowledge, and this foundation was to be as biology to chemistry or physics and of reducing some of secure as the best science of the time. The logical the social sciences, especially , to biology. If positivists were squarely in the empiricist tradition, which these reductionist projects were to be successful, then holds that all genuine knowledge must be reducible in issues that appear to be peculiarly biological, such as the principle to knowledge obtainable by empirical methods

2883

(c) 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. Science, Philosophy of and, ultimately, to that obtainable through the human any whatsoever. To refuse to relinquish a sensory apparatus. To this empiricist view they added a theory in the face of recalcitrant data is a characteristic deep concern with language resulting from developments feature of scientific irrationality. Popper’s brand of in logic in the late nineteenth and early twentieth falsificationism is comprehensive, for it requires that even centuries. reports of observations be falsifiable. Thus in contrast to ’ Although the most famous manifestation of the the positivists foundationalism, which is grounded in an logical positivists’ approach was the attempt to eliminate empirical base that is certain, falsificationism is a deeply metaphysical claims through the verificationist criterion of fallibilist position in which claims to are meaning (which asserts that a sentence is factually relinquished at all levels of generality. significant to a given individual if and only if that person Popper was well aware of a point often made by the knows what observations would lead him or her to accept French philosopher (1861–1916). To draw that proposition as true or to reject it as false), their true out testable predictions from scientific hypotheses, one legacy has been the view that it is by means of logical ordinarily needs to assume the truth of various back- analyses of philosophical concepts that genuine under- ground assumptions and theories (Duhem 1954 [1906]). standing is achieved. It is no exaggeration to say that Thus if the prediction turns out to be false, the force of philosophy of science in the years 1950 to 1980 was the falsification could be deflected away from the principal primarily engaged in a struggle to decide which elements hypothesis onto the background assumptions. Hence the of the positivist monolith to retain and what should be the need in the above specification of falsificationism to state replacement approaches for those parts that have been in advance what would result in the hypothesis rejected. Since 1980 these general issues have been rejected. downplayed in favor of issues specific to individual ’ sciences. Although this strategy removes the force of Duhem s criticism that there are no crucial experiments that can conclusively decide between competing theories, it moves Falsificationism. An important alternative to the positivist the emphasis away from a method of testing that is based program has been the falsificationist approach of Karl R. – Logik der Forschung only on logic and empirical data to one where a (human) Popper (1902 1994). Although his decision plays a central role, and this introduces a (1959 [1934]) was published in 1934, its impact was characteristically conventional element into the picture. muted until the expanded English translation appeared in Falsificationism is primarily a normative methodology, for The Logic of Scientific Discovery 1959 as . Popper set it prescribes and proscribes courses of action with respect himself the task of providing a criterion that would to scientific hypotheses. As historical and sociological distinguish between genuine scientific hypotheses and studies of science have become increasingly influential, ’ pseudoscientific statements. A key driving Popper s there has been a concomitant emphasis on the need for work was his view that the traditional problem of methodological theories to be descriptively accurate of induction could not be solved. Most generally, inductive what scientists do and have done. It is easy to find cases involves reasoning from what has been observed where historically important episodes of science do not fit to what has not been observed, a characterization that the falsificationist model, cases where scientists refused to covers from the past to the future, from abandon theories in the face of clear counterevidence. The observed data to the of directly unobservable difficult task is to articulate when this furthers broad microentities, such as prions, and from finite datasets to scientific ends rather than just narrow personal motives. the universal hypotheses that represent scientific laws and But to reject falsificationism merely because it is not general theories in and elsewhere. descriptively accurate of everything done in the name of Justifying inductive inferences was a serious problem science would be as misguided as an attempt to turn ethics for logical , because the verificationist criterion into a purely descriptive enterprise. ruled out all universal scientific theories and laws as meaningless simply because no amount of finite data ’s Work. One of the best-known alter- could conclusively verify these general claims. Popper natives to the positivist approach is that of Thomas Kuhn instead proposed the demarcation criterion that a (1922–1996). Ironically, Kuhn’s seminal work, The statement or theory was scientific only if it was falsifiable; Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2012 [1962]), was that is, it must be possible to state in advance a set of originally published as a volume in the positivists’ possible observations that, if observed, would result in the International Encyclopedia of Unified Science. Kuhn’s statement or theory being rejected. Theories such as strategy was to use the as a proving astrology and psychoanalysis were, according to Popper, ground for methodological positions in the philosophy of branded as pseudoscientific on the basis of this criterion, science. This history, Kuhn claimed, could be divided into because they traditionally accommodated themselves to fit two distinct types of periods: long stretches of normal

2884 , 4TH EDITION

(c) 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. Science, Philosophy of science punctuated by brief periods of revolutionary experimental apparatus, and the verification or falsifica- science. tion of hypotheses by empirical data. Any interference by To illuminate both kinds of science, Kuhn intro- nonscientific factors, such as economic considerations, duced the concept of a scientific . This concept, political pressure, and religious prohibitions, are to be in its mature characterization, consists of four compo- condemned as illegitimate influences to be resisted in nents. First, there are the symbolic generalizations, those practice and ignored in writing the history of the science. fundamental laws and principles of a science that In contrast, Kuhn holds that not only are such influences underpin all theoretical work in the field, such as the usually present and causally effective in propelling or laws of genetic replication or the principle of natural impeding the elaboration of a paradigm, but they are also selection of . Second is the metaphysical compo- frequently important in fixing the values component of a nent of the paradigm, within which the fundamental paradigm. Thus the religious opposition to research on kinds of things constituting the subject matter of the fetal tissue derived from deliberate abortions, the political science are specified, such as atomistic or field-theoretical pressure to direct funds in toward assumptions in physics or a commitment to specifically acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) research, mental properties as opposed to material properties in and the decision to allocate significant financial resources psychology. Third, there are the value commitments. to the are all part of an These concern not only what constitutes an acceptable externalist appraisal of the scientific research concerned. piece of evidence in the science but also what the Inseparable from this externalist approach is the shift appropriate goals are for a science and what the ethical in emphasis from scientific theories as logical entities standards are to which one should adhere. Thus double- whose existence and appraisal are objective matters, the blind studies are considered the standard methodology for truth or falsity of which is something to be discovered, to drug trials. Fourth, there are the exemplars, those a position where the opinions of a community of scientists quintessential successes that a scientific field can point are primary and acceptance of a paradigm is determined to as evidence for the fruitfulness of the first three by a consensus in that community rather than by the elements. For instance, behavioral could once paradigm’s truth or falsity. Coupled with the inclusion of point to the apparent heritability of schizophrenia as a externalist factors, this leads naturally toward a focus on success story. This example shows that Kuhnian exemplars the sociology of science rather than on its philosophy as need not be permanent successes; they can decline along traditionally conceived. with the paradigm. Some further consequences of the Kuhnian approach Normal science, then, is science conducted entirely are worth mentioning. Because of the incommensurability within the framework of a single paradigm, whereas of , revolutions lead to schisms in the path of revolutionary science consists in the development of a science, with a resulting loss of the notion of scientific competing paradigm and the process of a scientific progress. Comparative judgments of the kind “paradigm community’s transfer of allegiance to the new paradigm. A is superior to paradigm B” can no longer be made on a A seemingly inescapable consequence of paradigm change uniform scale of comparison, and what remains is in periods of revolutionary science, and one that is deeply technological progress without any necessary concomitant disturbing to many, is that the process of change is progress toward the truth. Consequently, what has come determined by neither rational argument nor empirical to be known as the Whig view of the history of science, evidence. Because a change in paradigm necessarily involves which sees the development of science as an uninterrupted a change in at least one of the four components described triumphal march to the peak of contemporary success, has above, there inevitably be fundamental differences of to be abandoned in favor of a contextually sympathetic opinion about whether the old or the new component is interpretation of previous theoretical traditions. Finally, if preferable, and the remaining three components will Kuhn is correct, there is no longer anything peculiarly frequently not provide a large enough common ground privileged in the scientific enterprise. The development of to resolve the dispute in an impartial way. In this way, art, architecture, music, and so forth can all be paradigms are, to use Kuhn’s term, incommensurable. characterized in terms of paradigms, normal practice, There is then a deep between Kuhn, on the one and revolutionary changes, a feature that has not escaped ’ hand, and both Popper and the positivists, on the other. Kuhn s critics. Equally important is the distinction between internal and external descriptions of science. In both the CONTEMPORARY WORK IN THE FIELD positivists’ and Popper’s approaches, the way science Perhaps the most important consequence of the collapse proceeds ought to be appraised only in terms of influences of the positivists’ domination in the philosophy of science that are purely internal to the science at hand, including has been the splintering of the field into a number of the construction of theories, the invention of a new subsets. One principal division is between those who

BIOETHICS, 4TH EDITION 2885

(c) 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. Science, Philosophy of continue to hold that there are general principles and those who hold that there is an objective that underlying various scientific methods and those for whom science investigates (Hacking 1999). This issue is of only local, context-specific approaches are feasible. Certain central importance in the classification of psychiatric areas of science still seem to be amenable to the first disorders, for example. Much of this work is interesting approach. The of scientific explanation is a topic of and legitimate, but the rejection of traditional norms perennial interest, with various causal and unification of has led in certain quarters to a denial that approaches (Salmon 1989) serving as the chief contenders science has any claim to superior methods of investigating to replace Carl Hempel’s logical model. Appeals to the world. The so-called science wars between those who mechanisms that eschew the need for scientific laws have seek to maintain the epistemological superiority of science become especially popular in the philosophy of biology and those who wish to undermine it are an extreme, (Machamer, Darden, and Craver 2000). How scientific albeit avoidable (Koertge 1998), consequence of this hypotheses and theories are confirmed is the subject of division. another area of research (Achinstein 2001), with computer- All of the threads described have made formulating a assisted diagnostic procedures in medicine forming a small satisfactory account of scientific progress less easy than it but important proving ground for inference procedures. was in earlier periods, especially in the philosophy of There is considerable interest in causal inference, particu- biology. The piecemeal framework of models, the attacks larly of the kind used in epidemiology (Pearl 2000). on both the rationality of scientific appraisal and the Despite these successes, issues related to the autono- of reality, the autonomy of multiple sciences all my of particular sciences have increasingly come to the have made a defense of progress toward a unified scientific fore. The positivists’ orientation toward reducing all account of the world more difficult than one might wish. sciences to physics, at least in principle, has been replaced Nevertheless, mere complexity and locality do not by a recognition that, at least in practice and perhaps even preclude science from accurately describing an objective in principle, this reduction cannot be carried out. There is reality in a systematic and rational fashion. now a “philosophy of X” for almost every science, from economics to geology. In particular, the philosophy of SUMMARY biology and the are well- established subfields with their own problems and Philosophy of science and bioethics share a common methods. Accompanying this trend has been a reduced concern. Each must draw a line between the prescriptive emphasis on grand unifying theories in favor of local and the descriptive, between what is rational and justified, models that capture, albeit imperfectly, the structure of on the one hand, and what is merely popular opinion and prejudice, on the other. Both Galileo (1564–1642) and specific systems (Humphreys 2004). This latter approach the Hungarian-Austrian physician Ignaz Semmelweis works well for biological models, in which the sheer (1818–1865) were victims of such antiscientific attacks, number and complexity of the influences on a system and the first for advocating the correct theory of the solar the importance of that system’s historical render system, the second for discovering the mode of transmis- simple general theories inadequate. sion of childbed fever. It is thus essential to have some A second primary division is between those for whom clear distinction between and opinion, between the normative, objective, and a priori characterizations of rational evaluation of a hypothesis or ethical view and its science are desirable and attainable and those who mere acceptance, between what is ethically justified and maintain that such characterizations are inevitably des- the way happen to act. To use a specific criptively inaccurate and unrevealing of the true nature of example, it is essential to distinguish between what science science. In this latter orientation lie contemporary can do to allow premature babies to survive and how one naturalistic and cognitive approaches to philosophical can evaluate the quality of life they might expect. This, if issues. Philosophers using these methods hold that nothing else, is why the apparently dry and abstract issues scientific knowledge from areas such as psychology and of the foundations of knowledge, of internal and external sheds more light on why certain influences on science, and of fact versus convention bear methods are successful than can more traditional a priori directly upon matters of more immediate concern. approaches. For example, instead of specifying a priori the SEE ALSO Biology, Philosophy of; Epistemic Injustice; inferences that an ideal reasoner should make in deciding ; Research Methodology: I. Conceptual which course of action is appropriate in some clinical Issues setting, a naturalist will investigate the heuristics that underlie reasoning used in clinical practice (Gigerenzer, Todd, and ABC Research Group 1999). BIBLIOGRAPHY Another dispute is between those who hold that many Achinstein, Peter. 2001. The Book of Evidence. New York: Oxford objects of scientific investigation are social constructions University Press.

2886 BIOETHICS, 4TH EDITION

(c) 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. Science, Technology, and Society Studies

Ayer, Alfred J. 1946 [1936]. Language, Truth, and Logic. 2nd ed. situatedness of science within society—its place in London: V. Gollancz. political, social, and historical contexts. At the same time, Burtt, Edwin Arthur. 1950 [1925]. The Metaphysical Foundations STS is concerned with the effects of scientific research and of Modern Physical Science. Rev. ed. London: Routledge and technological discovery on those same social, political, and Paul. cultural contexts, including public policy. It is the subject Curd, Martin; J. A. Cover; and Christopher Pincock, eds. 2012. Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues matter of science and technology, rather than a unique . 2nd ed. New York: methodology or disciplinary perspective, that unites STS. Norton. Duhem, Pierre. 1954 [1906]. The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Translated by Philip P. Wiener. Princeton, NJ: ORIGINS OF THE FIELD Princeton University Press. There are almost as many ways to account for the origin Gigerenzer, Gerd; Peter M. Todd; and ABC Research Group. and development of STS as there are schools of thought 1999. Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart. New York: within this dynamic field. In the United States, few Oxford University Press. scholars hold academic appointments in STS depart- The Social Construction of What? Hacking, Ian. 1999. Cambridge, ments; rather, established programs tend to be interdisci- MA: Harvard University Press. plinary, with affiliates from the humanities, social Patterns of Discovery Hanson, Norwood Russell. 1958. . sciences, and other fields. Perhaps ironically, those who Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. aim to distinguish the movements within science, Philosophy of Natural Science Hempel, Carl G. 1966. . Englewood technology, and society studies would have to create a Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. theory that accounts for those movements within the Extending Ourselves Humphreys, Paul. 2004. . New York: Oxford field, because STS aims to think about technical expertise, University Press. Scientific : Readings in the its development, and its impacts in sophisticated ways Klee, Robert, ed. 1999. (Hess 1997). Philosophy of Science. New York: Oxford University Press. Koertge, Noretta, ed. 1998. A House Built on Sand. New York: The tradition of thinking about the practice of Oxford University Press. science, its philosophical grounding, and its institutions ’ Kuhn, Thomas S. 2012 [1962]. The Structure of Scientific reaches from the Enlightenment through Max Weber s Revolutions. 4th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. “Science as a Vocation” (1946). The origins of STS as a Machamer, Peter; Lindley Darden; and Carl Craver. 2000. separate field come from the mid-twentieth century and “Thinking about Mechanisms.” Philosophy of Science 67 (1): can be said to date from the publication of Thomas S. 1–25. Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions in the early Okasha, Samir. 2002. Philosophy of Science: A Very Short 1960s (see Kuhn 2012). Kuhn’s text brought the concepts Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. of paradigm and paradigm shift into common use, as he Pearl, Judea. 2000. Causation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge argued that scientists inhabit communities of thought and University Press. practice that often resist new findings or evidence that is Poincaré, Henri. 1905. Science and Hypothesis. Translated by inconsistent with the dominant paradigm. William John Greenstreet. London: Scott. The deep background to STS lies in the conflict Popper, Karl R. 1959 [1934]. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. between Enlightenment goals of social transformation via Translated by Karl R. Popper, Julius Freed, and Lan Freed. science and technology and the critical backlash of London: Hutchinson. Four Decades of Scientific Explanation Romanticism. Since the 1960s, the science-technology- Salmon, Wesley C. 1989. . society relationship has reflected the need to understand Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. this trinity in its social context. Through this approach, the benefits of science have been questioned, and groups Paul W. Humphreys (1995, 2004, 2014) have formed around issues of consumerism, civil rights, Professor, Corcoran Department of Philosophy, the environment, Vietnam War, multinationals, and University of Virginia nuclear power.

DEVELOPMENTS IN THE FIELD The programs in STS’s first generation were housed in SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND under the idea that their creations interact SOCIETY STUDIES with the public in a unique and direct way (Cutcliffe Science, technology, and society (STS) studies is one 2000). In the next generation, the STS programs were name for the interdisciplinary field also called science and located within the liberal arts schools, with a scholarly technology studies, social studies of science, and science focus on the “social process” interpretation of science and studies. STS scholars and scholarship focus on the technology, which saw social values as shaped and shaping

BIOETHICS, 4TH EDITION 2887

(c) 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.