What is science and what distinguishes it from "pseudoscience"? What is the "scientific method", if there is any, and on what basis can it claim to ensure the objectivity of scientific results? How does science explain our observations and experiences? Does scientific knowledge progressively grow in a linear fashion or is its evolution dominated by radical revolutions? Are the scientists' grounds for rejecting an old idea and for replacing it with a novel theory completely rational and logically reconstructible or are they substantially influenced by irrational factors? Do scientific theories give literally true accounts of the world as it is, or should we regard even the most elaborate and well-confirmed theory merely as a useful tool to systematize our experience?

In the course of this class, we shall study these questions by discussing the most influential accounts that have historically been given of the nature of science. Occasionally, we will delve into pertinent episodes in the history of science or into a non-technical discussion of scientific theories, but the clear focus shall be on philosophical debates concerning the nature of science.

Course materials such as lecture notes, handouts, etc will be made available as they will be used in class.

• Syllabus (mandatory reading)
• Lecture 1 (9 January 2007)
• Lecture 2 (11 January 2007)
• Lecture 3 (16 January 2007)
• Lecture 4 (18 January 2007)
• Lecture 5 (23 January 2007)
• Lecture 6 (25 January 2007)
• Lecture 7 (30 January 2007)
• Lecture 8 (1 February 2007)
• Lecture 9 (6 February 2007)
• Lecture 10 (8 February 2007)
• Lecture 11 (13 February 2007)
• Lecture 12 (15 February 2007)
• Lecture 13 (20 February 2007)
• Lecture 14 (22 February 2007)
• Lecture 15 (27 February 2007)
• Lecture 16 (1 March 2007)
• Lecture 17 (6 March 2007)
• Lecture 18 (8 March 2007)

Lectures 19 and 20 do not introduce any new material.

Quiz 1

Question 1

Often, answers concerns many or all criteria mentioned, focus should have been exclusively on revisability. Describe the dogmatic nature of creationism. Laudan thinks creationism has revised some of its claim, e.g. regarding the variability of species. Give an example!

Question 2

Look the definitions up if you have made mistakes. Note that the two distinctions are separate.

Question 3

I expect here a statement of what the verifiability theory of meaning is, as well as an explication of the critique offered by holism.

Question 4

You must say here that an explanation has the form of a deductively valid argument, that at least one of the premises is a law of nature such that it (together with particular facts) entails the explanandum. All premises must be true, and the law must be ineliminable.

Question 5

Again: read the question carefully! It only asks you to explain the problem with common causes, not the problem of asymmetry. Give an example, such as the yellow fingers and lung cancer and explain why this is a problem for the D-N model.

Quiz 2

Question 1

Show why accidental generalizations cannot be distinguished from generalizations of law in a regularity account, and not just that they cannot be distinguished.

Question 2

Many confused "equivalent" with "identical".

Question 3

Again, show how the two conditions lead to a counterintuitive result--do not just state it.

Question 4

Explain what the ambiguity of falsification is and show how it arises from (D1) and (D2).

Question 5

Again: read the question carefully! It has two parts, so a complete answer must explain how holism is a challenge to falsificationism and must also state Popper`s reaction. It is absolutely acceptable to refer to your answer in Question 4.

Quiz 3

Question 1

Generally no problems.

Question 2

Do not forget to cite an example.

Question 3

Generally no problems.

Question 4

You must say something about Feyerabend`s general conclusion to the effect that reason should be challenged at any time, and not only state how and why Galileo had to challenge observation.

Question 5

Generally no problem. Notice that the Matthew effect in science according to Merton is rather specific (i.e. more senior and established scientists get proportionately more recognition for joint or simultaneous work than their less prominent colleagues).

Question 6

Notice that the priority dispute between Leibniz and Newton over the invention of calculus is not an example of the Matthew effect because both were prominent and established at the time. Also, it is at least not obvious that the case of Rosalind Franklin, who did pioneering work on X-ray diffraction images of DNA, is an instance of the Matthew effect. In order to establish that, one would have to show that Crick and Watson were more established than Franklin before 1953 or so (which they probably were). Note that she did not get the Nobel prize because the rules of the Nobel prize forbid posthumous nominations (she died in 1958, four years before Crick, Watson, and Wilkins received the Nobel prize).

Quiz 4

Question 1

Feminist postmodernism is not the same as feminist standpoint theory!

Question 2

Generally no problems, something to the effect that observation cannot act as neutral arbiter between theories should be said.

Question 3

Generally no problems, but it`s important to state that scientists are rewarded according to their contribution, but not according to their time or effort spent.

Question 4

Important point here: old evidence does not increase the probability of a theory. It is not the case, as many have answered, that the hypothesis automatically gets a probability of one.

Question 5

The first step is to correctly assign propositions to the letters. You are asked to give me the probability that a ball has been produced by the new machine given that it is deficient. If you look at the left hand side of the formula, you see how you must make this assignment: a is "ball is produced by new machine" and b is "ball is deficient". Now, P(a) is thus 0.8 because four out of five balls are produced by the new machine. P(b|a) = 0.01 because that`s the error rate of the new machine. Similary, as not-a means that the "ball is produced by the old machine", P(b|not-a) = 0.02 is the error rate of the old machine. Finally, P(not-a) is 0.2 as one out of five balls produced comes from the old machine. Now you can simply plug these values into the formula which gives you 0.008 divided by 0.008 + 0.004 or a final result of two thirds.

Back to top