01.11.2010

1

MNSES9100 Autumn 2010 – General Overview

Prof. Deborah Oughton

deborah.oughton@umb.no

Norwegian University of Life Sciences, andUniversity of Oslo’s Ethics Programme

Three AreasPhilosophy of Science

What is science?

Research Ethics

deborah.oughton@umb.no

EthicsHow should scientists behave?

Science and Society

Education, funding, law

Lecture Plan

Monday Introduction; Philosophy of Science

Tuesday Science, pseudo-science and ideology

deborah.oughton@umb.no

Research Ethics, Essay writing; Wednesday

Science and Education; The Modern University Thursday

Research Ethics (cont.); Environmental EthicsFriday

Publication, Ethical guidelines Science, Uncertainty and risk

Essay Seminars

15- 25th NovemberEach student attends a morning or

deborah.oughton@umb.no

Each student attends a morning or afternoon sessionOpportunity to get feedback on essay ideasSubmission 13th Dec

Attendance and exam

80% for lectures (register)

Essay seminar not strictly obligatory

deborah.oughton@umb.no

Essay seminar not strictly obligatory (but getting approval for an outline is!)

Exam: 6-8 page essay (pass/fail)

Course Literature

Book: Chalmers: What is this thing called science?Articles: Links and pdf files

deborah.oughton@umb.no

pdf files will be available on the website until 23rd Dec

Additional: plato.stanford.edu/contents. html

01.11.2010

2

What do Philosophers of Science do?

Ask:What defines scientific method?Why is scientific knowledge different from other forms of knowledge?

deborah.oughton@umb.no

gCan we distinguish between science and philosophy, poetry, technology, religion…What is the difference between a scientific theory and a non-scientific theory?Can science help us believe in the truth of an external world?

Why bother with philosophy?”It might be thought that either philosophers or sociologists would

have been able to illuminate the nature of science and why it has been so successful. Also not only have they failed to do so but some have instead provided what they regard as good reasons for doubting whether science really does provide an

deborah.oughton@umb.no

g y punderstanding of the way in which the world works…while providing no real threat to science they have become an increasingly vocal group, with an unfortunate influence on the study of science and its history…

”Fortunately for science these philosophical claims have no relevance to science and can be ignored…defining the nature of science is of only marginal interest, for it has no impact on their day to day activities”

Lewis Wolpert: The Unnatural Nature of Science (Faber and Faber: London. 1992

Reasons to learn about philosophy

Intellectual: educational, scholarly, informed opinionPractical/Social: society’s perception of science and scientists is influenced by what they

deborah.oughton@umb.no

y ythink science is.Political: scientific analphabetism, education, funding

deborah.oughton@umb.no

Lysenko and KhrushchevWikepedia

”Født sånn eller blitt sånn”

deborah.oughton@umb.no

The Timesdeborah.oughton@umb.no

01.11.2010

3

A Brief History of the Philosophy of Science

16-17th CenturyFrancis Bacon: Experimentation, inductivism,”Science is knowledge; knowledge is power”.

deborah.oughton@umb.no

Rene Descartes: human reasoning; ”I think therefore I am”

Vienna Circle (early 20th century)

Logical positivism, verificationismRudolph Carnap, Otto Neugarth, Moritz Schlick

History (cont.)Karl Popper (1943): The Logic of Scientific DiscoveryThomas Kuhn (1970): The Structure of Scientific R l ti

deborah.oughton@umb.no

RevolutionsPaul Feyerabend (1975): Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge 1970s-21st century: increased focus on social and political institutions (Ian Hacking, Bruno Latour, Philip Kitchner, Shelia Jasanoff)

InductivismScientific knowledge is derived from observation statements by inductionObservation supplied a secure basis upon which scientific

Theories justified by induction– the ONLY basis for scientific knowledge: LOGICAL POSITIVISM

upon which scientific knowledge can be basedScience starts with observation

Laws/theories

Facts acquired through observation

Predictions and explanations

Induction Deduction

Logical PositivismVienna Circle: Planned to create an oasis of reason in a sea of irrationality. Saw philosophy as the ”hand-maiden of science”, working to clarify issues for natural science.

deborah.oughton@umb.no

g yBertrand Russell: attempted to formalise the foundations of mathematics from a set of logical axioms (Principa Mathematica, 1910)Ludwig Wittgenstein: redefinition of truth from one of correspondence to objective fact to one of agreement between persons

Problems with Inductivism

Inductive arguments are not logicalObservation cannot be separated from theory

deborah.oughton@umb.no

o t eo yScience doesn’t start with observation

Hypothetico-deductive method

Hypothesis

Logically deduced

deborah.oughton@umb.no

consequences –to be tested by experimentalobservation

Experimentalobservations

Laws/theories

Facts acquired through observation

Predictions and explanations

Induction Deduction

01.11.2010

4

Abduction

Abduction – the selection of the best hypothesis to explain observations –and the reasoning to do this.

Theory/models

Facts acquired through observation

Hypotheses

William of Ockham

Responses to the Problem of Induction

Science cannot be rationally based (Hume’s answer)It works

deborah.oughton@umb.no

It worksRetreat to probabilityReject inductivism

Demarcation of Science from other academic

disciplines

-Demarcation of natural sciences from other academic disciplines from other academic disciplines -Demarcation of science from technology, pure and applied science-Demarcation of science from mathematics

Literature: Ziman, Kitcher, Popper

Definitions (OED)

Science – systematic study through observation, experimentation, interpretation to the derivation of universal laws and theoriesNatural Sciences – the study of the nature of the material and physical universe (physics, chemistry, biology, geology,

t t )astronomy, etc.)Social Sciences – the study of society and the relationship of individual members within society (economics, history, political science, psychology, anthropology, sociology, etc.)Technology – the application of practical or mechanical sciences, usually to industry of commerce; the methods, theory and practice governing such applications

(Vitenskap – science or branch of knowledge)

Background - demarcationAristotle and Plato – no distinction between science and philosophy

Greeks to the Age of Enlightenment –mysticism, religion, ideology

Bacon and Descartes scientific

deborah.oughton@umb.no

Bacon and Descartes – scientific methodology, logic, mathematics

Russell and Wittgenstein – demarcation between metaphysics and science; and between science and mathematics

Popper – demarcation between natural and social sciences

Science and MathematicsSimilarities: search for truth and proofScience relies on mathematicsDifferences:

Mathematics relies on logic rather than experiment and g pobservation Mathematics uses more sophisticated forms of proof: eg. Asserting a proposition by proving that its negation implies a contradiction

deborah.oughton@umb.no

01.11.2010

5

Philosophy of MathematicsOrigins of mathematics in China, India, Arabia, Middle East, GreecePhilosophical questions concerned with the nature of mathematical truth. Are numbers mental constructs facets of an numbers mental constructs, facets of an idealised reality, rulesMathematics: Analytical statements: true by virtue of the meanings of wordsScience: Synthetic statements: true by virtue of the way things are

debrah.oughton@umb.no

Al-Kwarizimi (ca 830) : Source of words algebra and word alogarithm

Milestones in the Philosophy of MathematicsRussell and Whitehead’s Principia Mathematica, 1910Gödels Incompleteness Theorum proved that there will always be unanswerable yquestions in mathematics. No logic system is capable of providing the firm foundations that Russel had hoped forChaos Theory: Lorenz (1960) observations of effect of small varitations in weather models: Non-linear systems

J. Gleick. Chaos (1987); Fermat’s Last Theorum, A. Doxiadis and C.H Papadatos: Logicomix; Uncle Petros

Science and Technology

Arguments for a differenceScientific thought has only one genesis (Greece-Europe)T h l d l d ll Technology developed all over the worldThe understanding of the world acquired through science is different than that obtained from technology

(Wolpert, 1992)

Thales (600-585 BC)

Counter-arguments

Requires a theory of what science isThe distinction between science and technology seems blurred in modern tec o ogy see s b u ed oderesearchThe pragmatist/instrumentalist claims that science is only science when it is of practical use

Similarities between science and other academic studies

Intellectual, reflectoryOwn technical languageInformative ”speaks to the mind”Informative speaks to the mindExplanatory power: once theories have been proposed it is possible to see confirming instances everywhere (inductively powerful)

Ziman

Karl PopperAim: To compare and contrast the following contemporary Twentieth century theories

deborah.oughton@umb.no

yEinstein’s theory of relativityFreud’s theory of psychoanalysisAlder’s theory of psychologyMarx’s theory of economics

What made Einstein’s theory special?

01.11.2010

6

Popper – FalsificationObservation is guided by theoryTheories are intellectually constructed conjecturesTheories can be conclusively falsified in

deborah.oughton@umb.no

Theories can be conclusively falsified in the light of suitable evidence, whereas they can never be established as true or even probably true whatever the evidenceScientific hypothesis need to be falsifiableScientific knowledge grows, there is progress in science

Falsifiability ?

deborah.oughton@umb.no

Freud Marx Einstein

Falsifiable Hypotheses

Metals contract when heatedPlanets circle the sun in ellipsesLarge gravitational fields will bend

deborah.oughton@umb.no

Large gravitational fields will bend lightDiseases are transmitted by germs

Non-falsifiable hypothesis

All ferric compounds contain ironYou might meet a tall handsome man this evening

deborah.oughton@umb.no

Animals have evolved so as to best fulfil the function for what they were intendedHuman emotions are motivated by feelings of inferiority

Bold Conjectures and Experimental Hypothesis

”Best” hypothesis: bold, falsifiable, testable”Best” experimental scientists: really try to test their hypothesis (not to verify them)

See also Nelson Goodman on simplicity, strength andsafety of hypotheses

Hypothesis: ”All vowel cards have an even number on their back”

A B 2 3

Which two cards should one turn to test the theory?

A B 2 3

Goldacre, 2006

01.11.2010

7

Hypothesis: ”Bats use radar and not sight to navigate” Case study: Dancing bees

Karl von FirschHypothesis: after finding a source of

deborah.oughton@umb.no

finding a source of nectar, bees returning to the hive use a complex ”dance” to communicate the location of the source to other bees

The ”waggle dance”

deborah.oughton@umb.no

Wenner’s challenge

No proof that the other bees understand the dance?Many other ways for the bees to find

deborah.oughton@umb.no

a y ot e ays o t e bees to dfood – including odour-search. No proof of cause and effect.

What kind of experiment would really test the hypothesis?

Wenner’s challenge

No proof that the other bees understand the dance?Many other ways for the bees to find

deborah.oughton@umb.no

a y ot e ays o t e bees to dfood – including odour-search. No proof of cause and effect.

James L. Gould – ”blindfolded” the dancing bee

Problems with Falsification

Scientists don’t

deborah.oughton@umb.no

reject their hypothesisAll observation

statements are fallible, including those purporting to reject a hypothesis

01.11.2010

8

Milikan’s Oil Drop Experiment (1916)

deborah.oughton@umb.no

Auxiliary and ad hocHypothesis

Scientists try to save their theories in the light of falsifying evidenceHypotheses are usually built on a host of auxiliary hypothesis and subsidiary

deborah.oughton@umb.no

auxiliary hypothesis and subsidiary assumptions

Popper’s replyDistinguish between interpretations of evidence that bring forth new, independently testable hypothesis and those resorting to ad hoc hypothesis

deborah.oughton@umb.no

British Test Veterans –Darby et al., 1989

Hypothesis: veterans exposed to radiation during weapons tests should not show increased leukaemia incidence because the doses were too smallCompared medical records of 22300 exposed veterans and military controlsBy 1984, 20 of exposed group had died of leukaemia compared to 6 controlsApparent increased risk dismissed by the authors as bias since the control cohort had an significantly low rate of leukaemia incidence compared to the general population

Correct use of auxiliary hypotheses

Independently testableScience should be unifiedFecundity – opens up new areas of

h

deborah.oughton@umb.no

research

Ad hoc hypothesis – no change in testabilityExample: The prediction of Neptune from Uranus’s movements

Mode of discovery and mode of justification

Difference between what scientists do as individuals (fallible) and what they do as a scientific community – critical rationalism

deborah.oughton@umb.no

rationalismProgress can be measured by the significance of observations and confirmationsProblem: all observation statements are fallible, including those purporting to reject a hypothesis

01.11.2010

9

Popper’s response”The empirical basis of objective science has nothing

”absolute” about it. Science does not rest upon a bedrock. The bold structure of its theories rises, as it were above a swamp. It is like a building erected on piles The piles are driven down from above into the

deborah.oughton@umb.no

piles. The piles are driven down from above into the swamp, but not down to any natural or ”given” base; and if we stop driving the piles deeper, it is not because we have reached firm ground. We simply stop when we are satisfied that the piles are firm enough to carry the structure, at least for the time being.”

K.R. Popper. The Logic of Scientific Discovery (London: Hutchinson, 1968)

Additional LiteratureThe Karl von Firsch dancing bees and James L. Gould’s “blindfold” experiments are described in Richard Dawkins, River out of Eden, Phoenix, 1995. A more critical assessment of the dance hypothesis, with reference to philosophy of science is given by

deborah.oughton@umb.no

with reference to philosophy of science, is given by the original critic, Andrew Wenner, “The elusive honey bee dance “language” hypothesis, Journal of Insect Behaviour, 15: 859-878 (2002); and Wells and Wenner (1973) Do bees have a language, Nature, 241:171-174. The Gould experiments are described in Gould et.al., 1970, “Communication of direction by the honey bee”, Science, 169: 544-554. All easily available from the internett

Essay TopicsWhich do you think is the most rational

grounding for scientific facts: observation or theory?

Identify some key hypotheses from your own

deborah.oughton@umb.no

Identify some key hypotheses from your own branch of science. How well do they meet Popper’s model?

Do some areas have an inherently harder job in demonstrating scientific validity as compared to physics?

Look at theory or history of science in other cultures

Group Discussions

Take a look at your own field of research and PhD project.

Identify what you think to be the major historical

deborah.oughton@umb.no

y y jbreakthroughs, and (if possible) key hypotheses and theories.

Is your own PhD project based on testing og hypotheses

How well does your field of research and/or PhD project fit Popper’s model?