Você está na página 1de 4

Science

Marie Curie: Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less.

What makes Science, Science?


Science is so because of the knowledge that can be gained Scientific knowledge is reliable because of: - Consistent results - Predictive power - Practicality - Repeatability As compared to historical knowledge - Testability Science vs Pseudo-Science - Scientific hypotheses are testable Vagueness. If a statement is sufficiently vague, it will be impossible to verify or falsify it. Quartz crystals can restore the balance and energy of your life. Meaningless. We need measurable criteria to consider balance and energy and make this a scientific claim. Ad hoc exceptions. Guy: Bro, all swans are white. You: Dude thats a black swan right there. Guy: Uhh all swans are white except that mutation lol A good scientific hypothesis is one that is general in nature and does not keep making exceptions every time it meets counter-examples.

Methodology of Science
Scientific Method 1. Observation of phenomena 2. Formulation of hypothesis to account for phenomena 3. Application of hypothesis to other untested phenomena 4. Performance of experimental testing

Objectivity/Reliability/Certainty/Justifiability of Science
Method ensures objectivity only to a certain extent. - Subjectivity in observation Scientists have pre-conceived paradigms and expectations Theory-ladenness in observation. An example of this could be given for determining an object's acceleration. If someone is to understand the measurement of 2 miles per second squared, he needs an understanding of the concepts of distance, time, and velocity. Our observation of how much something is increasing in speed

depends on our previous knowledge of these theories. As a result, such an observation is said to be theory-laden. Impossible to observe everything at once: Scientist has to decide what to observe, how does he decide? Subjectivity in hypothesis formulation Induction is process of generalisation that draws inference from individual occurrences and attempts to use inference to explain general, unobserved phenomena Problem of induction. David Hume: Impossible to prove that conclusion of inductive argument is likely to be true. All inductive arguments rest on Principle of Uniformity of Nature: a causal relation being formed from past relations, and the assumption that the future will be similar to the past. But to justify PUN, we need to use PUN as a justification. CIRCULAAAAAAAAR Failure of causation. Causation may just be correlation! Billiard balls and magnets under the table. But extreme skeptic views like these seem kinda untenable o Karl Popper to the rescue. Too easy to find evidence to support a theory. One can miss the plainest evidence of a blind alley when hunting for a garden path. Lewis Thomas MD. Impossible to verify anything conclusively, but only ONE reliable bit of evidence running contrary to the proposition is needed to upset it. So Poppers falsification emphasises proving propositions wrong rather than right. Criticism. Yes, we can now show that a proposition is wrong, but how do you prove it right? How many failed proposition attempts do you need to prove a proposition correct (Sorites paradox)? Subjectivity in hypothesis testing Confirmation bias. People tend to look for evidence that confirms their beliefs and overlook evidence that goes against them. E.g. dismissing unexpected results as experimental error. Like Mendel (1822-84) may have doctored his results Background assumptions. Underdetermination. Many different hypotheses consistent with a given set of data. So scientists appeal to the principle of simplicity, where between two theories which make the same predictions, the simpler one is preferred. Hypotheses 2 & 3 below seem absurd, so Hypothesis 1 is preferred. Criticism. Aesthetic prejudices can lead us astray. Copernicus thought planets orbit Sun in circles because circle is a perfect figure. But orbits are actually elliptical.

Paradigmatism (Thomas Kuhn)


Normal Science Build-up of anomalies CRISIS New paradigm Normal Science ...

A paradigm is the existing scientific worldview that encompasses theories Accompanying ideas - Truth relative to paradigm. We become interested in how true something is in relation to the paradigm, not how true it is in relation to the real world. - Theory-ladenness of data (again!). Scientist makes observations through lens of paradigm. - Incommensurability of paradigms. 2 paradigms may be so different that viewpoints and knowledge of each do not make contact. No common language. Paradigms cannot be compared on the same standards. Disagreement about standards for evaluating paradigms, about which problems a good paradigm should solve, what acceptable solutions to those problems look like, etc. Implications. - Science seems like irrational choice, not rational activity! - Are we moving towards more correct standards? Cant really know! We need to evaluate which theory (paradigm) is better, but to do this we need a common framework, which doesnt exist because of incommensurability :( - No objective truth because of theory-ladenness?

Realism and Instrumentalism


Realism - Entities that science talks about EXIST and science can say TRUE things about them. E.g. Electrons and DNA molecules exist and they do behave in the way that scientists believe them to - Arguments for: If unobservable entities didnt exist, then a miracle needs to exist, to explain empirical success of theories that posit unobservable entities. But miracles dont exist. Instrumentalist: But what about theories which were proven wrong? Enduring part of science is part based on observations and experiments. Theories are just scaffolding that can be dispensed with once they are no longer useful Science is about progress. But progress only happens if we have genuine conflict in scientific theories. But if unobservables dont exist, where is the conflict? So if we want progress, we must postulate idea that unobservables exist Instrumentalism - Unobservable entities are fictions that are used to predict the behaviour of unobservable entities - Content of a scientific theory involves nothing more than set of claims that can be substantiated by observation and experiment. Theories nothing more than useful instruments for helping us correlate and predict results of observation and experiment. - Discarded theories were useful in the past. Yes, they were untrue, but they played a positive role in helping to order and discover observable phenomena. Even currently accepted theories are simply scaffolding to help erect structure of observational and experimental knowledge and can be rejected once they have outlived their usefulness

Instrumentalists are anti-realist with regards to the unobservable world Arguments for: Underdetermination. More than one theory for set of observations. Chauvinistic to say your theory is true and another is false. Realist: Yes, underdetermination, but some theories really are better than others (on grounds of simplicity, predictive power) Realist: Yes, underdetermination is a problem when dealing with unobservables, but then isnt it a problem when dealing with observables as well?

Você também pode gostar