Science
????Science has led to significant advancements in our daily lives, including sending people to the moon, medical cures, and technological inventions. Scientific method is considered the most effective way of understanding and predicting the natural world. While some scientific inventions have had negative consequences, science has had more positive effects than witchcraft, magic, superstition, or tradition. Scientific method has replaced "truth by authority" with empirical testing and observation. Philosophers of science ask questions about the reliability and progress of scientific method.
THE SIMPLE VIEW OF SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Scientific method involves making objective observations of some aspect of the world.
A theory is created based on the observations which explains the pattern of results and predicts future outcomes.
If future results do not fit with the predictions, the theory is modified.
Scientific predictions can be very accurate due to the regularity in the natural world.
Scientific method moves from observation to theory to produce a generalization or universal statement with predictive ability.
This generalization, if it is a good one, is considered a law of nature.
The view of scientific method is widespread, but unsatisfactory due to its assumptions about the nature of observation and inductive argument.
CRITICISMS OF THE SIMPLE VIEW
????OBSERVATION
The simple view of scientific method assumes that observations are unbiased and unprejudiced.
Our knowledge and expectations affect what we actually see, as shown by examples of a telephone engineer looking at wires and a physicist looking at an electron microscope.
What we see is influenced by our mental set, which includes our knowledge, expectations, and cultural upbringing.
Some observations, such as the moon appearing larger on the horizon, remain immune to influence from our beliefs.
The relation between what we know and what we see is not straightforward and background knowledge does not always cause us to see differently.
????OBSERVATION STATEMENTS
Observation statements in science always have theoretical assumptions built into them
Observation statements classify experience in a particular way, but there are other ways to classify experience
Observation statements made in science presuppose elaborate theories
Theory always comes first, and unbiased observation does not always precede theory
What you see usually depends on what you know and the words you choose to describe what you see always presuppose a theory of the nature of the thing you see
These facts undermine the notion of objective, unprejudiced, neutral observation.
????SELECTION
Scientists don't record every measure of every phenomenon, it's physically impossible.
They choose which aspects of any situation they concentrate on, and this choice involves theory-related decisions.
THE PROBLEM OF INDUCTION
The simple view of scientific method relies on induction, not deduction.
Inductive arguments involve generalization based on specific observations, while deductive arguments start with particular premises and move logically to a conclusion.
Deductive arguments are truth-preserving, while the conclusions of inductive arguments may or may not be true.
Inductive arguments are used all the time in our daily lives and provide us with fairly reliable predictions about our environment and the probable results of our actions.
The principle of induction is not entirely reliable, and its conclusions are not as reliable as those arising from deductive arguments with true premises.
The Problem of Induction asks how we can ever justify relying on such an unreliable method of argument.
Induction has a crucial role to play in scientific method, and its reliability is a significant issue in the philosophy of science.
????INFERENCE TO THE BEST EXPLANATION
Not all inductive arguments follow the general prediction format
Inference to the Best Explanation is a non-deductive style of reasoning that judges the plausibility of a hypothesis in terms of the explanation it offers
The best hypothesis is the one that explains more
Inference to the Best Explanation is important in science and everyday life, but is not completely reliable
There is always some other possible explanation of the same evidence
Philosophers disagree on whether Inference to the Best Explanation is a form of induction, but all acknowledge that the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion
Inference to the Best Explanation is used when deduction is impossible and when there is more than one possible account of how things came to be
????ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE PROBLEM OF INDUCTION
The Problem of Induction has another aspect aside from generalizing about the future based on the past.
There are various generalizations that can be made based on the past that can give different predictions about the future.
The philosopher Nelson Goodman used the term "grue" to illustrate this second aspect of the Problem of Induction.
"Grue" refers to something that is green if examined before the year 2100 or blue if not examined and observed after the year 2100.
The evidence is consistent with the view that "All emeralds are green" or that "All emeralds are grue".
The predictions we make based on induction are not the only ones we could make using the available evidence.
ATTEMPTED SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEM OF INDUCTION
????IT SEEMS TO WORK
Reliance on induction is widespread and fruitful in discovering regularities and predicting future behavior of the natural world.
Science's success in sending people to the moon justifies faith in induction.
Induction is the best method we have for predicting the future.
A circular argument is that the defense of induction relies on induction.
An inductive argument cannot provide a satisfactory justification for induction.
????EVOLUTION
Universal statements rely on the assumption of similarity between the things being grouped together
The classification of things and properties can differ between individuals and groups
Some generalizations are more natural for humans than others due to genetic programming
Human tendencies to make accurate inductive generalizations are a result of natural selection
These tendencies lead to reliable predictions and provide an explanation of why we trust inductive arguments.
????PROBABILITY
The response to the Problem of Induction is to admit that although we can never show the conclusion of an inductive argument to be 100% certain, we can show it to be very probably true.
The laws of nature which science discovers are not absolutely proven to hold, but are generalizations which have a high probability of being true based on the more observations we make confirming these laws.
This response is known as probabilism.
Probability is based on how frequently an event has happened in the past, but the assessment of probability itself is something that can change, and justifying our reliance on probability is circular since it relies on induction.
FALSIFICATIONISM: CONJECTURE AND REFUTATION
Falsificationism, developed by Karl Popper, denies that induction is the basis of scientific method.
Scientific theories are not claims to truth but speculative attempts to analyze aspects of the natural world.
Conjectures are subjected to experimental testing aimed to prove them false, rather than true.
Science progresses by means of conjecture and refutation.
Any theory could be falsified, and none can be proven to be absolutely true.
Falsification has an advantage over the simple view of science because a single falsifying instance is enough to show a theory is unsatisfactory.
Universal statements are easier to disprove than to prove.
????FALSIFIABILITY
Falsificationism distinguishes between useful scientific hypotheses and irrelevant ones.
The usefulness of a theory depends on how falsifiable it is.
The more falsifiable a statement is, the more useful it is to science.
Some scientific hypotheses are untestable, and therefore not scientific at all.
Avoiding untestable hypotheses in science is necessary for progress.
Science progresses through trial and error.
Bold imaginative conjectures are important in scientific progress.
Popper's theory emphasizes the creative imagination involved in thinking up new theories.
CRITICISMS OF FALSIFICATIONISM
????ROLE OF CONFIRMATION
Falsificationism neglects the importance of confirming scientific hypotheses.
Confirmation of hypotheses is a significant aspect of scientific development, particularly successful and original predictions.
The role of hypothesis confirmation should be acknowledged, but falsificationism still holds that a single falsifying observation has greater logical power than any number of confirming observations.
????HUMAN ERROR
Falsificationism suggests that a single falsifying case can overthrow a theory.
There are many components to any scientific experiment and considerable scope for error and misinterpretation of results.
Scientists should not be easily swayed by one observation that appears to undermine a theory.
Popper agrees that a single falsifying instance could undermine a theory in principle, but he does not suggest that scientists should abandon a theory as soon as they have an apparently falsifying case.
Scientists should be sceptical and investigate every possible source of error.
????HISTORICALLY INACCURATE
Falsificationism does not account for some significant developments in the history of science.
The Copernican Revolution and Newton’s theory of gravity were not discarded despite apparent falsifying instances.
Popper’s falsificationist account should have been modified to explain how scientific theories are superseded.
Thomas Kuhn suggested that a new paradigm is developed at key moments in the history of science, which involves new assumptions, new interpretations of evidence, and a new range of problems to be solved.
Science progresses not by conjecture and refutation but by a series of paradigm shifts.
SCIENTISM
There are claims that science can explain everything important about human condition.
Some argue that if something cannot be explained scientifically, it cannot be explained at all.
Some philosophers claim that philosophy is part of science.
Similar ideas are present in other academic areas like literature and music.
The term 'scientism' is often used dismissively to refer to such views.
CRITICISMS OF SCIENTISM
????IMPOVERISHED ACCOUNT OF EXPLANATION
Scientists seek general, law-like explanations that apply in a wide range of situations.
While scientific explanations might give an accurate picture, they often omit the lived experience of certain phenomena.
Understanding some phenomena can be more readily addressed by a novelist or poet than a scientist.
Scientific explanations have their place, but they are not everything.
The main objection to scientism is that it overvalues scientific explanation.
CONCLUSION
The chapter focuses on the Problem of Induction and the falsificationist account of scientific method.
Some scientists have been influenced by the falsificationist account of scientific progress.
Philosophy may not necessarily affect the way scientists work, but it can change the way they understand their work.
