Philosophy of Science

[snas (Stuart)]

This comment from Neurologicablog, the blog of Steven Novella, a neurosurgeon in the US. Thought this may be of interest to some here.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=2981#more-2981


Stuart

[CraigS]

Without the current philosophical principles of Science, we'd all be back to deluding ourselves.

Replace it ? … With what ?

Criticism is easy .. creating alternatives is difficult, so the critics are left standing when this is asked of them.

What we have, is not perfect ... but its better than the null alternative.

Cheers

[Brian W (Brian)]

Chew on this thought... science can only get the answers that it can ask the questions for.

Seems to me that before you can have science you must have someone thinking about a whole bunch of what ifs.

Without philosophy science would quickly come to a standstill.

Certainly philosophy cannot answer all of the questions but neither can science ask all of the questions. Either one dies without the other

brian

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by Brian W

Chew on this thought... science can only get the answers that it can ask the questions for.

Seems to me that before you can have science you must have someone thinking about a whole bunch of what ifs.

Without philosophy science would quickly come to a standstill.

Certainly philosophy cannot answer all of the questions but neither can science ask all of the questions. Either one dies without the other

brian

I agree ... I ask a lot of "what ifs".

I also think it is important to ask the right questions with no expectation as to what answer you would like. It seems once a "theory" gains some sort of recognition the questions thereafter lead to a particular desired result.

alex

[avandonk]

When ever I see a slight at Dawkins I smell a right wing religious nut posing as 'whatever their reality can think of'!

I ask you how many sewerage systems. potable water distribution systems and transport systems kept philisophers in the much needed fuel of alcohol and coffee and narcissistic self importance.

Just the term post modernist is a philosophical construct of ignorant twits that define the Universe as they want it to be. It just does not work!

Sorry the philosophers may have had some say when there was stuff all empirical knowledge. They should stick to arguing about how many angels can dance on a pin.

Unless philosophy is firmly gounded with emperical knowledge it is meaningless drivel!

Bert

[Rob_K]

Originally Posted by avandonk

Unless philosophy is firmly gounded with emperical knowledge it is meaningless drivel!

Bert

Yep, gotta agree wholeheartedly with Bert! 'Philosophers' aren't going to break any new ground in science in this day and age. The notion that they can is a sad symptom of the mistrust and ignorance of science that prevails in the paranoid world of the web, LOL, and demeans the capabilities of scientists at the cutting edge IMO.

Cheers -

[Brian W (Brian)]

Let me try this... math teaches you about math, chemistry about chemistry, physics about physics etc. etc. etc..

Philosophy is the only area that teaches how to think.

Unless I am terribly mistaken the better the thinking the better the science.

Therefore philosophy and science are very much interdependent.

Brian

[avandonk]

I have to withdraw my earlier statement it looks like this bloke could be kosher as a sceptic.

He could be pandering to the nutters in the states? I dont know! These nutters have a combined IQ of a bean bag! I don't know they could have!

My alarm bells ring when anyone uses philosophy to argue with emperical scientific fact.

He does waffle a bit defending the idiocy of philosophy that comes before science. Then decries post modernism which is a child of this stunted thinking. His mistake was that there is any relationship between science and philosophy apart from an overlap.

I could go on and on and on ...

Bert

[avandonk]

I just read a few of his respondents and it looks like they are intelligent and educated. Of course this means nothing when you are correct and ignorant and follow Glenn Beck!
Bert

[avandonk]

Philosophy is how to think, quite correct.

It is about arguement thus

that animal has four legs
dogs are animals with four legs
therefore it is a dog!

Logical but can be totally wrong!

Humans are based on an instinctive reaction to situations. By the time you logically infer an animal is about to eat you, you are dead.
The converse is true when you are hunting or fishing.

Polititicians know about this instinctive fear and greed and use it in every election!

Bert

[CraigS]

Gotta laugh at this quote:

“Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds,” according to physicist Richard Feynman.

Perhaps Hawking agrees with this, also.

Cheers

[KenGee]

Can anybody give me an example in the last 50 years where Philosophy of Science has contributed in a positive way? I think it has in fact done the extact opposite providing oxygen to the antiscience flames.

[Brian W (Brian)]

It is not within the last 50 years and others may disagree that is the philosophy of science but when Einstein and some of his co-workers attempted to have the bomb -not- dropped for moral / ethical grounds this to me is a stand based upon philosophical grounds which has had, at least in my life, a positive impact.

Brian

[CraigS]

Yes Ken;

I think all science presents dilemmas which almost certainly fall into the domain of 'Philosophy'. Who actually works those dilemmas is an interesting question. In many cases, it is the scientists themselves, which I see as a good thing. This being because they have a better grasp of the issues and what they represent.

I suppose overall, it is the general media, public opinion and ultimately, the political process which debate the issues and wrangle them to some sort of (usually) uneasy conclusions. Leaders in theses fields have also emerged from the 'mire'.

Examples would be: stem cell research, global warming, nuclear power proliferation, etc.

The philosophical tenets which have guided the scientific process which I feel, are extremely sound, solid foundations and have brought us to where we are today, have stood the test of time. As Bert mentions, this is because they were firmly rooted in empirical knowledge which hardened them for the way ahead. More recently, guys like Popper, Hempel, Oppenheim have all progressed thinking in recent science, largely by promoting debate and dedicating their brilliant minds to the cause.

I think we have to accept that at times, science will be dragging philosophy along sometimes and at others times, it might be vice versa.

Tis a symbiotic relationship, I think .. just as Brian pointed out in his earlier post.

Cheers

[Robh (Rob)]

Hi all,

So what is philosophy? One definition is "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality and existence."
Another is "the study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge".
And the context must often associated with philosophy, "a standpoint or belief held by a person that guides their behaviour".

Philosophy isn't just restricted to stances on ethics and morality.
Philosophy is also the study of what constitutes logical reasoning.
e.g. if A implies B and B implies C, then A implies C? But if A implies B then does B necessarily imply A?
I will come back to the latter later.
Philosophy also asks what is sufficient evidence to substantiate a position. A particular viewpoint may not be provable in the strict sense but what evidence is there to support this conclusion. Example, a belief such as atheism.

Philosophy examines the rules of logic and asks such questions as what it means for a proposition to be true.
Philosophy examines the relationship between logic and mathematics.
In mathematics the rules of step-wise logic lead to definitive proof of theorems. However, in mathematics there are assertions (axioms) that are considered self-evident e.g. if a = b then a+c = b+c. These assertions are used in the proofs of theorems. It was the hope of early mathematicians that all mathematics could be derived from a set of basic axioms. Godel showed that non-trivial systems are incomplete i.e. that there are always statements that cannot be proved from the axioms within the system.

In science, we have the scientific method.
Experiment and observation lead to a hypothesis, which is formalised into a model or set of mathematical relationships.
The model is then used to make testable predictions, which confirm the assumptions of the model.
Continued observations may lend more credence to the hypothesis and elevate it to the status of a theory.

It must be understood that in science indisputable proof is not possible.
In mathematics such proof is possible but in science "proof" depends on continued supportive evidence.
In the end, I have a theory T which predicts I will get data D.
My observations confirm data D within some confidence limit. Therefore, I conclude T is correct. But how logical is that?
I go back to the question "if A implies B then does B necessarily imply A"?
Thus, the scientific method is certainly open to philosophical discussion.
One may believe that a theory accurately describes the real universe but there is no way of verifying this. Data is incapable of proving theories, it can only lend more credence to a theory. In fact, as history shows, there is a very real possibility that some of our models are entirely wrong, despite their perceived agreement with observations.

Inductively, scientists extrapolate theories to apply in any part of the universe. The cosmological principle is NOT a provable scientific fact. There is no way I can observe every part of the universe. In science we cannot prove that a law will apply in every part of the universe in the same way. However, for the sake of progress, I can assume that it does until an exception is found.

Finally, what is the criteria of validation, the point of acceptance, of a hypothesis as a theory? How many observations validate a theory?
Theories in science are not absolute truths. They invariably change and they continue to evolve into something wider.
I would argue that a scientific position is really just a weigh-up of all the evidence at hand. Is that science or philosophy, or both?

Regards, Rob

[avandonk]

Originally Posted by Robh

Hi all,

So what is philosophy? One definition is "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality and existence."
Another is "the study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge".
And the context must often associated with philosophy, "a standpoint or belief held by a person that guides their behaviour".

Philosophy isn't just restricted to stances on ethics and morality.
Philosophy is also the study of what constitutes logical reasoning.
e.g. if A implies B and B implies C, then A implies C? But if A implies B then does B necessarily imply A?
I will come back to the latter later.
Philosophy also asks what is sufficient evidence to substantiate a position. A particular viewpoint may not be provable in the strict sense but what evidence is there to support this conclusion. Example, a belief such as atheism.

Philosophy examines the rules of logic and asks such questions as what it means for a proposition to be true.
Philosophy examines the relationship between logic and mathematics.
In mathematics the rules of step-wise logic lead to definitive proof of theorems. However, in mathematics there are assertions (axioms) that are considered self-evident e.g. if a = b then a+c = b+c. These assertions are used in the proofs of theorems. It was the hope of early mathematicians that all mathematics could be derived from a set of basic axioms. Godel showed that non-trivial systems are incomplete i.e. that there are always statements that cannot be proved from the axioms within the system.

In science, we have the scientific method.
Experiment and observation lead to a hypothesis, which is formalised into a model or set of mathematical relationships.
The model is then used to make testable predictions, which confirm the assumptions of the model.
Continued observations may lend more credence to the hypothesis and elevate it to the status of a theory.

It must be understood that in science indisputable proof is not possible.
In mathematics such proof is possible but in science "proof" depends on continued supportive evidence.
In the end, I have a theory T which predicts I will get data D.
My observations confirm data D within some confidence limit. Therefore, I conclude T is correct. But how logical is that?
I go back to the question "if A implies B then does B necessarily imply A"?
Thus, the scientific method is certainly open to philosophical discussion.
One may believe that a theory accurately describes the real universe but there is no way of verifying this. Data is incapable of proving theories, it can only lend more credence to a theory. In fact, as history shows, there is a very real possibility that some of our models are entirely wrong, despite their perceived agreement with observations.

Inductively, scientists extrapolate theories to apply in any part of the universe. The cosmological principle is NOT a provable scientific fact. There is no way I can observe every part of the universe. In science we cannot prove that a law will apply in every part of the universe in the same way. However, for the sake of progress, I can assume that it does until an exception is found.

Finally, what is the criteria of validation, the point of acceptance, of a hypothesis as a theory? How many observations validate a theory?
Theories in science are not absolute truths. They invariably change and they continue to evolve into something wider.
I would argue that a scientific position is really just a weigh-up of all the evidence at hand. Is that science or philosophy, or both?

Regards, Rob

That is exactly the problem!

Idiots who claim they were ahead of the Physicists AFTER THE EVENT!

The Catholic Church clings to the BIG Bang as if they invented it.

Let me define science 'we only believe in emperical evidence' and if the evidence changes we will change our minds.


Philosophy is full of wacky ideas without any basis in reality.

Splitting hairs about evidence is superfluous.

The final point of validation is what works! Bert

[CraigS]

Great post Rob.

That encapsulates it all for me, also.

How a Hypothesis turns into a theory is a bit of a mystery for me, also. Some theories start off as theories, from the outset. This would be because they would be defined around an explanation for why certain laws and facts exist, that can be tested to determine its accuracy. A hypothesis starts off as a more tentative statement and can ultimately end up as a Law or a Theory. These definitions all come straight from scientific philosophy. I have no idea how science could exist without such definitions. All thanks to the past Masters of Scientific Philosophy …

How much evidence is enough evidence .. that is the biggy for me. (I'm a huge skeptic, methinks …). How do I define the acceptance criteria ?

More importantly, how do scientists define it ? What is the process ? Peer review ?

Cheers

[avandonk]

I will admit that philosophers await the dawn, as the fact the Sun rises every morning has not yet been proved!
Contesting the bleeding obvious is not the mark of rational people.

Bert

[CraigS]

I guess so, Bert.

Fraudulent scientific behaviour aside, I guess the final 'end game' amongst scientists gets played out when the arguments become no longer rational and 'reasonable'. (This sometimes takes a long time !)

Not so at the science-meeting-the-public interface, however.

The 'trial by media' played out under public scrutiny goes on ad-nauseum, or so it seems. This one turned up, just this morning (as an example … and yes, off-topic … apologies for that, but I couldn't resist it):
Distrust of climate science due to lack of media literacy: researcher
(Released by: Caren Cooper, a research associate who works on 'citizen science projects', at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, in a Forum article in the March issue of BioScience magazine … I'm only posting it, as an aside).

This researcher seems to think media studies will sort it all out for the generally, scientifically illiterate public !!

Evidence shows that media literacy education would help the public critique media messages and better assess the truth behind them, Cooper says.
…
Previous research demonstrates that informal science education {comment: what is this ??}, in the United States has not emphasized critical thinking, she said. {Comment: kind of self-evident, if the education is 'informal' !!}
..
Research shows that laypeople and the media tend to view all scientific viewpoints as equally valid and, therefore, give too much credence to the minority viewpoint of skeptical scientists.
…
The solution? Cooper draws on a new approach emerging in the field of science communication that engages the public in activities and dialogues that interpret scientific knowledge. Citizen science, where the public actively collects scientific data, offers one such example.

A threat to Science and Scientific Philosophy?

… or is that what we do here … 'Citizen Science' ??

Cheers

[Dave2042 (Dave)]

2 cent's worth from me. (Hi everyone, first time I've posted)

The problem with some philosophy of science is that it seems to fail to recognise that science is fundamentally a practical activity. Scientists go out and look at actual events in the real world and try to come up with descriptions and models of these events. Even a theoretical physicist is really engaged in this activity.

So a philosophy of science is good and useful where it addresses things like scientific ethics, or the difference between models and reality, or why the scientific method works.

Where it stops being good and useful (to science at any rate) is when philosophers (or people with a brief undergraduate exposure to philosophy) stop treating science as a practical activity and require it to be a perfect and unassailable description of the Truth. Typically this seems to involve things like:
- expecting science to 'prove' things like maths does (which fails to understand what mathematical proof is)
- expecting science to demonstrate that there is an external reality (science, like everyone else, is simply satisfied that there is one)
- expecting that science never gets things wrong (a large part of the point of science is getting things wrong).

Ulitimately, the test of science is whether it works, not whether philosophers are satisfied with it. I'd suggest that the best test of science is its child (who is often mistaken for science itself), technology. When the planes stay up in the air, we know our science is mostly right.

Dave