Unit 3. Anything goes? [Philosophy of Science]

1. Unit 3Revolutions and relativism

2. So far: Logical positivism and confirmation Critical rationalism (Popper) and falsification Today: sociology of science

3. In the sixties and seventies of the last century a new generation of philosophers of science emerged. Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996) Paul Feyerabend (1924-1994) ImreLakatos (1922-1974)

4. Thomas Kuhn

5. Popper was describing the way science ought to work (normative) Thomas Kuhn was interested in the way science actually works (descriptive)

6. Popper and the logical positivist made a rational reconstruction They focus on the reasons not the causes for scientific behavior.

9. paradigms

11. The pre-paradigmatic period The pre-paradigmatic period is the period before there is a paradigm. There is confusion among ‘scientists’ because they do not share a common paradigm. Scientist think differently about what facts are and what are important problems.

16. Crisis If to much anomalies occur there is a crises Confusion returns, and the old paradigm starts to crumble. Two solutions: The issues are resolved A new paradigm is found, revolution.

18. Revolution New (young) scientist come up with a fresh idea. A paradigmatic shift occurs (Gestalt-switch), a change of worldview.

19. Paradigms are incommensurable

20. Assignment Think of three examples you consider paradigm shifts These examples could about science, society, or your own life Present it in front of the group

21. progress why does science progress? how does it progress? and what is the nature of its progress?

22. Kuhn doesn’t see a uniform ‘progression’ of science. If there is a uniform progression then only within a paradigm. He questions the rationality of science

23. The Copernican revolution

24. Geocentrism, the Aristotelian worldview Copernicus and the heliocentric worldview Galileo Galilei and proof As an effect of the Copernican revolution man ceased to be the center of the universe

25. The inquisition forced Galileo to renounce his findings

27. Paul Feyerabend

28. The enemy of science Feyerabend thought Kuhn was killing creativity with normal science There is no such thing as rational scientific progress, not even within a paradigm.

29. Back to Galileo

30. Against empirical evidence Challenging observation rather than following it. Galileo not only changed his worldview, but also the way to measure it If the earth moves why do things fall in a straight line?

31. Other observers tested Galileo’s telescope and did not see the same His telescopic observations differ from normal observations

32. Even worse, Galileo’s observations weren’t accurate the sketches he made of the moon do not really resemble the moon at all.

33. Galileo and Copernicus worked contra-inductive. If we followed empirical research, then we would still be stuck with the Aristotelian view.

34. Inquisition and modern science Feyerabend compares modern science with the inquisition The inquisition only tried to defend the prevalent worldview He compares this with creationism

35. ? Galileo succeeded despite, not thanks to rationality and induction. What really happened? Creativity and social factors, public relations so to say What to do: go against the rules, whenever possible.

36. Theoretical anarchism Anything goes

37. ImreLakatos

38. Lakatos considered Kuhn’s idea’s as destructive He wanted to save the rationality of science He proposes: research programs He wanted back to Poppers rationality of science

39. Research programs A research program is like a paradigm. The difference is that their can be more than one at the same time. Every program has a hardcore and a protective belt

40. Adjusting Popper Falsification forbids all ad hoc adjustment Lakatos calls this naïve falsification He suggest that the research programs should get the time to develop Rationality in the long run

41. Global Warming

42. Practical example: Global warming Is science being driven by social motives? If so: isn’t that unscientific? Is this a bad thing? Is there room for alternatives? Should governments act upon the global warming hypothesis? Give your own opinion on this debate