EDWARD'S LECTURE NOTES:
More notes at http://tanguay.info/learntracker
C O U R S E
Philosophy and the Sciences
Duncan Pritchard, University of Edinburgh
 |
C O U R S E L E C T U R E Epistemic Relativism, Scientific Realism, and Falsifiability Notes taken on October 29, 2014 by Edward Tanguay |
•
two contrasts set scientific inquiries apart from other inquiries
•
1. science and pseudo science
•
astronomy vs. astrology
•
similar
•
same subject matter: what is in the sky
•
pseudo-science inquiries look very much like scientific inquiries
•
both gather evidence
•
both make predictions
•
dissimilar
•
astronomy makes bold claims that are testable and falsifiable
•
astrology makes vague claims that are not testable or falsifiable
•
astronomy taught at universities
•
2. science and non-science
•
literary theory as non-science
•
similar to science since it involves
•
scholarship
•
gathering evidence
•
yield knowledge
•
dissimilar
•
science makes falsifiable claims
•
the trial of Galileo
•
Galileo used a new technology to make observations of the heavens
•
Bellarmine appealed to evidence of scripture to argue the sun orbits the earth
•
that had different conceptions for what counts as evidence for settling scientific questions, e.g. "what are the heavens like?"
•
Galileo thinks that evidence from direct observations count the most
•
Bellarmine thinks that evidence also includes the evidence of scripture
•
Bellarmine does not believe that observation has no bearing at all on this question
•
Bellarmine believed that as the technology got better, there may someday be enough evidence to make the case that the earth orbits the sun
•
Bellarmine did not believe that the evidence of scripture was sacrosanct
•
what is important is that Bellarmine thinks that the evidence of scripture is relevant to the question whereas Galileo doesn't
•
epistemic relativism
•
this is not relativism about truth
•
they both think that there is an objective issue that they are both trying to settle
•
the each think that one of them is right and one of them is wrong
•
it's a relativism about what counts as evidence for what
•
it seems that because their conceptions of what counts as evidence are so different, that there is no way of settling their dispute
•
there seems to be no neutral ground between these two disputants
•
how do we say to Bellarmine that his Biblical evidence isn't relevant, or how to say to Galileo that it is relevant?
•
Galileo won the argument from a historical point of view and the perspective of the scientific revolution
•
and with the scientific revolution came a view opposed to epistemic relativism, that of scientific realism
•
scientific realism
•
the goal of science is to uncover the objective truth about the world around us
•
scientific progress occurs when our theories accurately represent facts which can be repeatedly demonstrated
•
opposed to epistemic relativism, as there is an objective epistemic basis for evaluating scientific disagreements
•
which is why Galileo eventually won the argument
•
science honors the kind of evidence that Galileo was interested in
•
not that which Bellarmine was interested in
•
what is it about the scientific method which makes it objective in a way that the scientific realist maintains?
•
inductivism
•
induction vs. deduction
•
deductive inference says that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true
•
all swans are purple, X is a swan, therefore X is purple
•
inductive inference says that if the premises are true, the conclusion is only likely to be true
•
lots of swans that have been observed are white, therefore it is likely that all swans are white
•
but this doesn't guarantee the truth of the conclusion
•
science proceeds by making inductive inferences
•
this kind of reasoning is fallible
•
although its fallible reasoning, it's a rational way to build a corpus of facts about the world based on both observation, experimentation, testing and reasoning
•
falsifiability
•
approach of Karl Popper
•
says that the scientific method is essential deductive, not inductive
•
scientists do make lots of observations
•
but then make bold conjectures about the way the world is
•
then they seek to refute and falsify those bold conjectures
•
e.g. (1) see lots of white swans, (2) make a bold conjecture that all swans are white, (3) go out and try to find the counter example that falsifies the bold conjecture
•
this is actually deduction: a conclusion refuted by a counter-example, e.g. there is a black swan, therefore it is not the case that all swans are white
•
claims are made bold so that they are falsifiable, they state clearly what will falsify them
•
Popper argued that theories such as those of Marxim and Freudism are not falsifiable and are therefore not scientific claims
•
e.g. astrology makes inferences of various kinds
•
claims are very vague and indeterminate
•
it's unclear how one would go about testing them to definitively show that they are true or false
•
in contrast, the scientist comes up with bold conjectures
•
the conjectures being bold, they offer a straight-forward way of being tested