What is this thing called science? Ch. 7

(Originally written November 7, 2006 in Book 8)

What is this thing called science?
Alan Chalmers

Chapter 7 - The limits of falsificationism

[Problems stemming from the logical situation]

Scientific laws cannot be logically deduced from a set of observable facts.

The falsity of a law can be logically deduced from a single observable fact.

Falsificationism begins to experience problems in complex situations because it is impossible to deduce from logic whether a law or a theory is false or if the evidence used to debunk the theory/law is false.

Straightforward, conclusive falsifications of theories are not achievable.

Scientific theories are super complex and consist of various universal statements.

All theories need to be augmented by auxiliary assumptions.

Auxiliary assumptions include laws and theories governing the use of instruments in experimentation.

Experimentation also involves many extra set of premises and auxiliary assumptions.

So when an experiment proves something false who can be sure that the scientific law or an auxiliary assumption or a condition is what is false. No one can say for certain.

When a theory cannot be conclusively falsified because the possibility that the auxiliary assumption or a part of the experiment is faulty, falsificationism proves to be inadequate. When this happens it is called the Duhem/Quine thesis.

Falsifications of a theory can also be avoided by deflecting the falsification to some other part of the complex theory. The objectivity of science goes out the window as scientists cling to their precious theories.

[Falsificationism inadequate on historical grounds]

Falsificationism fails to be represented by the history of science. If it had been strictly adhered to then some of our most important scientific theories would have been abandoned in their infancy. Some of these are:

• Newton's gravitational theory
• Bohr's theory of the atom
• Kinetic theory
• Copernican Revolution

The Copernican Revolution

The Copernican Astronomy system of the 16th century challenged the Aristotelian system (4th century B.C.) and the Ptolemaic system (2nd century).

Copernicus could not adequately defend his system against the scientific community.

Falsificationism would have ruled out Copernicus' system from the onset.

Galileo's addition to the Copernicus system through the verification of Copernicus' predictions via the use of a telescope chipped away at the dogmatic belief in the Aristotelian/Ptolemaic system.

The use of a telescope also raised serious epistemological questions. Why should the data collected via the telescope be more reliable than data collected through the naked eye?

Kepler further defended the Copernican theory using Galileo's mechanics, Copernicus' astronomical theory and Tyco Brahe's recording of planetary positions and made a strong defense of Copernican theory.

Newton then furthered the theory. 

Neither inductivism nor falsificationism gives an account of science that is compatible with the Copernican Revolution.

The Copernican Revolution took hold in spite of the many falsifications in the early, imprecise theory formulations.

[Inadequacies of the falsificationist demarcation criteria and Popper's response]

"Popper made a seductive case for his criterion of demarcation between science and non or pseudo-science" (Chalmers, 101-102).

Popper claimed that non-qualified falsificationism was too broad. Popper claims that theories must be falsifiable and must not be falsified. Popper claims the modifications to falsified theory is acceptable in his sophisticated falsificationism.

Dogmatic science is allowed in Popper's theory.

If dogmatism becomes part of falsificationism then what role does falsificationism really play?

"It would be ironic if the highly qualified version of falsificationism became so weak as to rule out nothing, thereby clashing with the main intuition that led Popper to formulate it" (Chalmers, 103).

Falsificationism, Inductivism and Kuhn Notes

(Originally Written November 3, 2006 in Book 8)

Ok, so we are in trouble because of a time crunch. The test is in 1.5 hours. It's time to sum up.

Falsificationism:

I. Naive Falsificationism and its problems

• A hypothesis must be falsifiable in order to be informative.
• Anything that is unfalsifiable can make all situations fit their theory. This makes the theory look good; but, it neither proves anything nor denies anything. It simply explains events according to a theory.
• Since hypotheses must be falsifiable, the more falsifiable a theory is the better it is.
• Problems - 
• "Since hypotheses must be falsifiable, the more falsifiable a theory is the better it is" is very vague
• Naive falsificationism takes too static or too isolated a view on individual theories.
• "A hypothesis must be falsifiable in order to be informative" is in fact, a non-falsifiable statement. How can you falsify it?

II. Falsifiability as a criterion for scientific theories. 

• Science is a set of hypotheses to explain a certain aspect of the world.
• A hypothesis must be falsifiable to state anything informative
• A non-falsifiable hypothesis can look sound but cannot explain anything or deny anything.
• Falsification makes it informative and if science is to be informative it must be falsifiable

III. Ad Hoc Modifications and Popperian (Sophisticated) Falsificationism

• Ad hoc modification - any modification to a theory that has no independent testability
• Relativity of falsifiability - Naive falsificationism claims that a more falsifiable hypothesis is better. Sophisticated falsifiability claims that a falsifiable hypothesis ought to be replaced by a more falsifiable hypothesis
• Aim of science - The aim of science is to falsify hypotheses and replace them with better ones.
• Confirmation is key in sophisticated falsificationism (Chalmers)

IV. Confirmation in the falsificationist model

• Bold conjectures are better than irrelevant truisms
• Bold conjectures that are not falsified lead to novel predictions
• The bolder the conjecture the better
• Refutations help to eliminate falsehoods which in turn reveals more truth

V. Problems with Falsificationism

• Theory dependence of observation: There is no absolute objectivity in science.
• Falsifications are fallible
• Ad Hoc modifications
• Auxiliary assumptions
• Falsificationism is not recommended by the History of science
• The Copernican Theory, for example, would have been rejected before adequate technology could confirm it.

Inductivism:

I. Inductivism and its problems

• Science is inductively derived from the facts
• Science has a factual basis, not a theoretical one
• Observation precedes theory
• Problems
• Facts and experimentation are theory dependent and fallible
• What is the criteria for a good inductive inference?
• Science is not the mere accumulation of facts. Relevant theories and methods must precede observation

II. The problem of induction

• How can knowledge of the unobservable be derived from observable facts?
• Solutions
• Hume - animal faith
• Kant - induction is grounded in a priori, not observation
• Will - Past futures resemble past pasts. Therefore, future futures will resemble past pasts and future pasts. (This begs the question)
• Reichenbach - pragmatic approach: "if anything works, induction will"

The Problem of induction

I. Hume's Fork (Two types of knowledge)

• Relation of ideas
• Matters of fact
• Where does the concepts of uniformity of nature and causality lie? They are neither a relation of ideas nor a matter of fact.
• Hume's solution - Animal faith or a habit 

II. Kant's response - inductive inferences are grounded in a priori concepts

III. Will states that past futures resemble past pasts so future futures will resemble past futures and past pasts.

IV. Reichenbach - (Pragmatic) "If anything works, induction will"

Kuhn's paradigms 

I. Nature of scientific paradigms/incommensurability of paradigms

• Paradigms are relative to their specific field
• Paradigms possess:
• Specific accepted laws and theories
• Specific accepted approaches to experimentation
• Specific accepted metaphysical generalities
• Specific accepted methodologies
• Paradigms are incommensurable because they cannot fit with each other at all
• They are incommensurable because they ask different questions and hold different value systems
• The incommensurability of paradigms leads to the crises and revolutions

II. Paradigm shifts

• Pre-Science - disorganized research, no paradigm
• Normal science (caused by Pre-Science) - puzzle solving activity governed by an accepted paradigm
• Anomalies - unsolved puzzles 
• Crisis (caused by Anomalies) - serious anomalies will cause crisis
• Revolution (caused by crisis) - If the crisis is not resolved revolution will occur and a new paradigm will emerge

III. Criticism of Kuhn

• Ambiguous
• Relativity
• Criteria changes within his method
• Is there progress or is there paradigm shift?

The Stoics

(Originally written July 15, 2006 in Book 4)

The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell

Chapter 28 - Stoicism

Stoicism was founded by Zeno, a contemporary of Epicurus, but the doctrine evolved much more gradually than Epicureanism. Zeno's Stoicism was a fusion of Cynicism and Heraclitus. By the time of Marcus Aurelius (a stoic), it had morphed into a system with Platonic and anti-materialistic elements.

Stoicism was less Greek than any other Greek philosophy. The earliest Stoics were mostly Syrian, the later were mostly Roman.

Zeno was a Phoenician from Cyprus, born in the second half of the 4th century BC.

Stoicism of Zeno formed around Cynicism but adopted some of the Academy's views and looked at Socrates as a saint.

Virtue was ultimately important to Zeno. Metaphysical subtleties were of no use for him.

Zeno did not doubt the senses because he thought that was useless and absurd. Zeno denied chance and nature was determined by strict natural laws.

He believed that everything was cyclical.

God was the soul of the sensible world.

All things possessed some bits of God, the Divine Fire.

Nature was one integrated system of many individual parts.

Free will produced virtue when one acted in accordance with nature.

Physical things were of no merit when concerned to virtue. Virtue can be found in all men, regardless of their physical surroundings.

Not just bad passions are condemned by the Stoic; all passions are.

Sympathy for death was bad. Friendship is of no account. Politics are useful, but unimportant. Nothing matters except virtue.

Zeno condemned the building of temples because there is no virtue in buildings.

He believed in astrology and divination.

Cleanthes of Asso immediately carried on the Stoic torch. He is known for 2 main things:
1) Condemning Aristarchus of Samos for promulgating a heliocentric belief.
2) The "Hymn to Zeus'.

Chrysippus (280-207 BC) followed Cleanthes and systematized Stoicism.

He believed that if a thing was to exist, the opposite necessarily exists. Thus, since good exists, evil necessarily exists.

He held logic to be fundamental.

He held an empirical theory of knowledge based on perception.

Post-Chrysippus, stoicism was altered by two men, Panaetius and Posidonius.

Panaetius introduced a lot of Platonic elements into Stoicism. He abandoned all materialism.

Panaetius befriended Scipio and influenced Cicero. Posidonius taught and further influenced Cicero.
Cicero brought Stoicism to the Romans.

Posidonius was a Syrian Greek and escaped the anarchy of Syria upon the collapse of Seleucid Empire. He moved to Athens.

He traveled extensively in Western Europe, North Africa and saw the heads on pikes on the Barbaric Spanish coast.

He was scientific, an extraordinary astronomer, and a historian of note.

He further combined Stoicism and Platonic elements.

By the way, a cover up of the Mary Magdelene by the Catholic Church is appalling. Obviously she was Jesus' husband. Just look at the Gnostic Gospels for the truth! (sarcasm obviously)

Posidonius believed the soul did not perish with the body (as most Stoics did) but rose into the air. The more virtuous a soul, the higher it rose. Extremely sinful souls were reincarnated.

Te most virtuous souls floated among the stars and helped out the living; thus, his belief in astrology.

Posidonius may have laid the foundation for Gnosticism.

The Copernican theory, not Christianity, finally doomed his philosophy.

The three most important Stoics (historically, not philosophically) were Romans:
1) Seneca - a preacher
2) Epictetus - a slave
3) Marcus Aurelius - an emperor.

Seneca lived from 3 BC - AD 65. He was a politician in Rome, though of Spanish origin. He was banished by the Emperor Claudius but was later recalled to tutor the future Roman Emperor, Nero.

Seneca amassed riches by usury in Roman Britain.

He was accused of treason by Nero and permitted to commit suicide.

He died in a Stoically virtuous way leaving 'the example of a virtuous life to his grieving family'.

Some Church Fathers considered him a Christian. St. Jerome believed he correspond with St. Paul.

Epictetus (AD 60 - 100) was born a slave. He was lame (probably from cruel punishment). He was banished along with all other philosophers by Emperor Domitian.

Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) became emperor in 161. He devoted himself to be a Stoic Emperor.

He persecuted Christians (Russell contends as a political necessity) for not bowing to the State religion.

His life and ring were married by horrors: wars, an immoral wife (accused), earthquakes, rebellion, pestilence, etc.

Stoic beliefs proved reasonably consistent, in that virtue is not dependent on outside circumstances. As emperor, Marcus Aurelius and the slave Epictetus held nearly identical philosophical views.

The Stoic ethic fit the hopeless age in which Aurelius lived.

"If we understand that virtue is the only true good, we shall see that no real evil can befall us" (Russell, 263).

All men are sons of God but doomed to death. Stoics go out to death without 'whining' or 'groaning'.

A Stoic is one who is sick yet happy, in trouble yet happy, dying yet happy...

Epictetus hold that one should love his enemies.

"Every man is an actor in a play, in which God has assigned the parts; it is our duty to perform our part worthily, whatever it may be" (Russell, 264).

Marcus Aurelius held that since life is fragile, virtue must always be asserted.

He regards the universe as a closely knit whole and as one living being, one substance, and one soul [pantheism?].

Despite his status as Emperor and the preeminence of the Roman people, he held all men to be brothers.

Stoic ethics and theology contradict on one point. The universe is wholly deterministic, yet man has free will. Then man can do neither harm nor good to another, but the virtuous good will is the sole good.

The Stoics held that these contradictions were of necessity because it was impossible for all men to live up to their rigorous standards. They offered lower standards to those who could not live up to the high ones.

Kant's ethical standards are similar to the Stoics (according to Russell, but I don't see the correlation).

While Stoics concerned themselves mainly in Ethics they advanced progress in two main areas:
1) Theory of knowledge
2) Doctrine of natural law and natural rights

The Stoic theory of knowledge accepted perception in the face of Platonic theory.

King Ptolemy invited a Stoic by the name of Sphaerus to dinner and to embarrass him he gave Sphaerus a wax pomegranate to eat. The king laughed and pointed out the obvious deceptive nature of the senses. Sphaerus fired back that he had felt no certainty of it being real, but figured it unlikely that anything inedible would be served at a royal meal, thus shaming the king.

The Stoic theory of knowledge also included innate ideas and principles.

Aristotle's Physics

(Originally written July 14, 2006 in Book 4)

The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell

Chapter 23: Aristotle's Physics

The nature of a thing is its end, i.e. the nature of an acorn is to be an oak.

Aristotelian nature has a teleological implication.

Things with these teleological natures have an internal principle. It is their nature to become what their nature is.

Things not yet at their end (an acorn, not yet an oak) are their potential nature.

Motion is the prices of achieving one's potential.

Time is the motion of numeration.

There has always been motion and there will always be motion.

Without motion there is no time.

The earth is the center of the universe.

On earth everything is composed of combinations of the four elements. Everything in the heavens is composed of a fifth element.

Side note - "Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo had to combat Aristotle as well s the Bible in establishing the view that the earth is not the centre of the universe" (Russell, 207).

Linehan - Bad science based on poor Biblical interpretations does not negate the accuracy of the Bible, only disproves the theories based on bad Biblical interpretation. I can state that God created the world in seven, 24 hour days and then that could theoretically be disproved by science. The Biblical account of creation would not be discredited then, only my interpretation would.

Aristotelian physics is incompatible with Newton's First Law of Motion.

Also Aristotle's view of the heavenly bodies being indestructible and otherwise incorruptible obviously has to be abandoned.

Leviathan Ch. 13-15

(Originally written February 3, 2006)

Continental Rationalism
-Descartes
-Spinoza
-Leibniz

British Empiricism
-Locke
-Berkeley
-Hume

Rationalism (early Modern)

1) Built a system by using math and geometry as a model
2) Believed in innate ideas (certain inborn ideas, conceptions, knowledge we have at the time of birth)
3) The explainability thesis: everything is susceptible to some rational explanation

Empiricism (early modern)

1) The source of ideas come from sense data (experience)
2) Justification of their beliefs must produce evidence of that belief

The Scientific Revolution
- Preceded and concurrent with the births of rationalism and empiricism

The pre-scientific revolution cosmology included:
1) geocentricism
2) the heavenly vault
3) the heterogeneity of the universe (terrestrial and celestial bodies moved differently)
4) Aristotelian doctrine of change/motion (demands a cause for motion, that cause also has to have a purpose)
-Efficient Cause - Mechanical
-Telic cause - giver of purpose

Galileo's science did not defeat the Church or Church theology. Galileo's sound theory deposed a bad influence of Aristotelianism on an uncritical theology.

Keys in Scientific Revolution

-Copernican Revolution (heliocentric)
-Kepler's law of planetary motion
-Bruno's infinite cosmos
-Galileo's kinetics

What are the implications of these on philosophy?

1) Universe is rational
2) The world is comprehensible
3) The cosmos is homogenous
4) Fruitfulness of systematic inquiry
5) Teleological (purpose oriented) explanation is no longer necessary

Classics of Philosophy

Ch. 13 of Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan

Ch. 13 "of the natural condition of mankind as concerning their felicity, and misery"

Men are made equal. No one can claim to be greater by birth alone. "The weakest has the strength to kill the strongest" (Pojman, 542)

All men believe they are smarter than other men

From the fact that all men are equal in ability, all men have equal hope to achieve a goal. When these goals become conflicting then the men become enemies and both are capable in one way or another of destroying their enemy.

All men want to have their value assessed by their companions (equal, which is all men) assessed at what they have assessed it as.

In the nature of man we find three principles to quarrels
1) Competition
2) Diffidence
3) Glory

Competition makes men invade for gain, use violence for that gain

Diffidence makes men defend their position for safety

Glory makes men fight for glorify and trifles

Without a power to stop them, man is constantly at war with all other men.

The war exists in the act of fighting and in the knowledge that tensions are there that could ignite and inspire fighting. When there is no fighting and no intention of fighting there is peace.

When man is at war, there is no time for life, art, wealth, knowledge or worst of all, society. In times of war there is "continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" (Pojman, 543).

Hobbes condemns men with words, other men condemn them with acts of locking doors and securing themselves.

Sin is not found in man's nature, passions or desires. It is not found even in his actions until he breaks the law.

Where there is no power to fear there is no law. Where there is no law there is no justice.

Justice and injustice do not lie in man or his nature; they lie in society.

The passions or desires that make men want peace are:
1) Fear of death
2) Desire for commodious living
3) The hope for the means to secure the commodious living

Chapter 14: Of the first and second natural law of contracts

The right of nature is the liberty of man to preserve his own life through any means necessary

Liberty is the absence of anything that would stop him from using his power.

A law of nature is a general rule that forbids man to destroy himself.

Right is the liberty to do something.

Law is what forbids them to do something

The first law of nature is to seek peace because it is good for him.

The second law of nature is to defend ourselves by any means necessary when the first law cannot be achieved.

This law is from the Gospel: "do whatever you wish done unto yourself"

If man insists on keeping the right to do whatever he wishes he is constantly at war; but, if he renounces that right and others renounce theirs they are at peace with each other. But not only one man can renounce his right and all others retain theirs for the man who renounced his right in the face of the others retaining theirs breaks the second law of nature by not employing all means to defend himself.

The bonds by which men transfer or renounce their rights to pursue peace are strengthened by the fear of some evil consequence upon the rupture of this agreement. They are not strengthened by the word of men because nothing is so easily broken as the word of man.

The renunciation or transfer of rights by a man is done so for a right being renounced by another or transferred to him by another or in the hopes of good that will come to him.

The mutual transferring of a right is a contract.

If a contract is made when one man's right is immediately transferred for the future transfer of another's right it is called a pact or a covenant.

When one transfers his right in hope of some future good to come to him it is called a gift, free gift or grace and is not a contract.

When a contract is made for both parties to transfer at a future date upon a power over them is needed to quash their constant tendency to return to state of war.

To make a covenant with God is impossible because we cannot know whether or not our covenants have been accepted.

Men are freed of their covenant in 2 ways:
1) by preforming: natural end of an obligation
2) by being forgive: restoration of a liberty

Chapter 15 "of other laws of nature"

The third natural law is that men perform the covenants that they make, otherwise their covenants are in vain and we are still in the condition of war.

Without any covenants there can be no covenants broken and if no covenant is broken than no injustice has been done.

The definition of justice is simply performing no unjust acts (not breaking any covenants)

To be justice their must be no war, because in a state of war there are no unjust acts. To be no war there must be a coercive power to force men to perform their covenants and thus be justice.

To enforce covenants (justice) the punishment of breaking covenants (injustice) must be greater than the anticipated gain of breaking the covenant.

The foolish man states that there is no justice and that there is no God.

The just man is the man who has taken all reasonable care to keep his covenants, the unjust man is the man who has neglected this reasonable care.

A just man does not by one or a few mistakes or unjust acts caused by sudden passion become unjust.

Injury is done to the man who breaks a covenant. Damage is done to the man whose covenant is broken by the other man.

No man gives without the intention of good to himself.

Compliance is a law of nature that states every man must strive to accommodate himself to the rest.

If a man retains what is superfluous to himself, yet necessary to others he should be cast out of society because he has become cumbersome to that society.

Forgiveness is another law of nature. A man should grant forgiveness for offenses past to another man that desires it.

Pardon is a granting of peace.

Another law of nature is that revenge should be forgone for the greatness of good that will follow a lack of revenge.

Avoidance of hatred is a natural law because hatred breeds war.

Another natural law is that all men must acknowledge one another as equal.

Equity is the distributive justice

There can be no unequal share given to different then, for that is contrary to equity.

Where there can be no equal distribution it is determined first by agreement, second by first seizure or first possession

An arbitrator should decide any dispute of covenant.

Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo

(Originally written February 2, 2006 in Book 4)

A History of Western Philosophy, Vol. 3
W.T. Jones

Copernicus

-It was the rebellion against Aristotle and Aristotelians that created a climate for Copernicus to produce a heliocentric theory. Thus began the Neoplatonic and Pythagorean revival. It made it 'Ok' to suggest the universe ran in accordance with simple mathematical principles rather than with a constant divine manipulation.

- The grafting of Pythagoreanism into Christianity created an idea of an omnipotent creator who was in fact an omniscient mathematician. This inspired the mathematical study of nature.

-Copernicus assumed two things about the earth:
1) It revolves on its axis
2) It turns in a circular path around the sun between Mars and Venus

-Copernicus was hesitant to publish his thoughts because of fear of the Church's reaction. However the Church took little notice of the heliocentric theory until Galileo popularized the theory 60 years later.

Kepler

-While not a great observer, Kepler did have a keen sense of generalizing and synthesizing. He could discover simple uniformities hidden beneath the rich diversity of concrete facts.
-Kepler was devout Lutheran but he was convinced of a God that created the universe to work on simple mathematical harmonies and principles.
-Kepler had three laws:
1) The planets orbit in ellipses around the sun
2) Each planet moves at varying speeds around the sun. As a planet travels from A to B the area ABS is swept out. As it travels from C to D the area CDS is swept out. If the time it takes to travel from A to B is equal to that of C to D, the areas of ABS and CDS are equal.
3) The square of the periodic times are proportional to the cubes of the mean distances from the sun.
-Kepler's laws were a great achievement in astronomy but what they depend on is a great achievement in knowledge. They are based on two things:
1) The framing of hypotheses
2) The mathematization of data for the purpose of confirming or disconfirming the framed hypotheses.

Galileo

-Galileo discovered four moons orbiting Jupiter
-Galileo's contemporaries (aside from Kepler) knew that Galileo could have only produced the moons of Jupiter by witchcraft or by slight of hand because it would have other wise rendered their theory that God created seven heavenly bodies incorrect
-Galileo wrote "Dialogues concerning two new sciences", which is one of the most important contributions to the development of science.
-Dialogues analyzed the ranges of the behavior of bodies on earth including:
1) Resistance to fracture
2) Causes of cohesion
3) Uniform motion
4) Naturally accelerated motion
5) Violent motions

Brief notes on Copernicus

(Originally written February 1, 2006 in Book 4)

A History of Western Philosophy Vol. 3
W.T. Jones

The Mathematical Spirit

- The Mathematical Spirit aims at converting qualities to quantities
- Empirical evidence is used to form a hypothesis, then 'pure mathematics' is done to come at correct deduction. Then empirical methods are employed to check the relation of the hypothesis to the mathematical calculations

Copernicus

-Astronomy was the science to which mathematics was first applied.
-Some ancient Greeks hypothesized that the sun was at the center of the universe and other correct astronomical facts, but these were not accepted due to their radical social and religious implications.
-Ptolemy (2nd century A.D.) suggested that the planets moved in epicycles around the earth and the stars stayed in fixed spots.
-Not much theorizing on astronomy was done between the 2nd century and 15th century due to a lack of mathematical skill and a lack of interest in the subject.
-With a new sense of astronomical speculation revived in the 15th century the tables were set for Copernicus to make an impact on the world.