Information Technology, Science and Society.

Philosophy of Science: Module Two

 

Introduction

I don't see how you can do something you care about without wondering what you are doing, why and what it all means.

Historical Background

In that sense the "old guys" had it right doing and thinking about doing are not separate. On the other hand, asking what kind of philosophical school you espouse is ridiculous. All kinds of ways of thinking can be useful as Davies talks about Feynman's view: formalism is not helpful

An Overview

Inductivism is not useful when it talks about "scientific method" as immutable, unchangeable. The "observational " law is fine as far as it goes , but as Medawar, P. (1964) Is the Scientific Paper a Fraud? says few scientists really observe things without having some kind of theory in the back or at the front of their minds. Obviously "theoretical" laws change as reality is forced upon them.

Naturally scientists are as biassed and short sighted as the rest of the human race!

Science and the scientific method

In my opinion, science is one way of answering some of the questions we have about the natural world.

Is science subjective or objective?

Obviously there is no ultimate objectivity. One of the myths of my educational training was we were meant to be objective when teaching. Ha! Fat chance! The best we can do is be aware of and acknowledge our prejudices (very hard to do as we tend to think we alone are not prejudiced or subjective!)

Conceptualization of Science: the 3 basic elements

1. Empirical data and their theoretical interpretation

It's these empirical elements that are what people believe science is about. Obviously the experimeter to a larger or lesser extent interferes with the "data". Obviously too what we examine is selcted, how much and how often it is measured has to be selected. It seems that each so-called process involves making up an idea, trying to find data to fit that and either altering the idea ...or altering data. Both have been done!

2. The next part of science includes the conceptual elements

Conceptual ideas are the "closed shop language" of science which is similar to that of every other field. Science creates its own world of accepted ideas and structures.

3. The third part of science includes the formal and mathematical elements.

The maths and the scaffoldng that underpins the exploration and makes patterns. Some would say that this is the crunch point, f it can't be reduced to mathematics. I would disagree, just because our mathematical tools are too imprecise, doesn't mean it's not important or doesn't exist.

Radical Empiricists vs. Rationalist (Cartesian) Schools

Both these schools of thought are extreme and as such wanting. If you believe Radical Emprircists then no flight of fancy, no surprise or serendipity is worth investigating. It seems to me many "informed" hunches were the basis of real advances. On the other hand, Rationalists who deal only with thnking it out, may loose contact with real data and bend it to fit an elegant theory.

Building and testing hypotheses: induction, deduction and falsification

. Inductive reasoning is easy to follow Deductive reasoning is much more difficult to navigate. The exercise "give me furiously to think" Inductive/deductive combinations are the way most things are worked out and discovered. You mix the two together. That makes sense. Falsification Into to Logic oh boy mathematics and calculus of thinking. I'm not sure any of that will stick. I prefer de Bono!

Theory-Dependence of Observation

If a scientists sees does he necessarily see the truth? It's pretty obvious that a lot of scientific discovery takes longer because theories were inadequate or mindsets too rigid.

Plausibility of theories and hypotheses

When we make generalisations from observations we rarely can factor in all variables. Occum's razor has it's merits. KISS?! What's a law of nature? gravity makes things fall? and time goes forward? maybe.

Is science subjective?

Why should science be any more subjective/objective than anything else? Possibly it might try to be but people have a great penchant for fooling themselves

Scientific Change: Big Bangs, or Small Whimpers?

how does science change, and grow? Much the same as anything else

Kuhn's Paradigm

scientific revolutions. makes sense. After all, most knowledge of any kind is in this pattern His discussion of immature/normal/revolution seems very sensible to me.

Popper and Lakatos

Popper's idea has some merit. Obviously many scientists start with an idea before they start observations or experiments. His idea of falsification matches some of the logic definitions. However, I tend to think most would combine both experiment and theory. A strict theory without much experiment is silly; experiments willy nilly would just flounder. Lakatos ideas are interesting. The hard core protected by an outer belt that alone changes. When you read Ferris it's quite clear many scientists added bits to their theories to make them work, rather than changing them altogether.

Laudan

Conflicts are rather like the falsifications and the attacks on the protective belt. I love the flow diagram. Much more honest!!

Feyerabend's "Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge"

Feyerabend argues that the history of science is so complex and varied that no single methodology of science could ever be uniquely applicable Yeay!! Again , we're getting somewhere. Why do people like to make theories and then say everyone fits....or should!! .

They Don't Emit Light, They Suck Dark…

I love it , so elegant!! Isn't it amazing how nonsense can sound so erudite. Makes you very careful about accepting scientific (or any other "truth").

Some Fun Things To Do

I find it so fascintating that these examples I've ued so often in English and Drama classes as communication activities, and trust building exercises should be science exercises too!!

Empirical data and their theoretical interpretation