Philosophy of Science Introduction

Philosophy of Science

• This course explores the nature of scientific knowledge.

Scientific Knowledge

• Focuses on the work of Hospers.

What is Science?

• Observing regularities in the world is fundamental to science; examples include the sun rising in the east, iron rusting, and chickens laying eggs.
• Irregularities, like some trees not bearing fruit, make comprehending the world challenging.

Introduction to the Philosophy of Science

• Regularities are needed to predict the future and guide action, however, they aren't always consistent.
• Experience doesn't guarantee future outcomes; predicting that keeping a sick friend away from someone will prevent that person from catching a cold, but that may not happen.
• Science seeks fundamental, unchanging patterns (invariants) in nature.

Laws of Nature

• Laws of nature are distinct from human-made laws, as they are descriptive rather than prescriptive.
• Laws of nature are discovered, not invented.
• Laws of nature are universal statements which are confirmed by observations.

Features of Laws of Nature

• First Feature: Universal statements in the format "All A's are B's". Examples include "All lead melts at 327.5°C" and "All iron rusts when exposed to oxygen."
• Second Feature: Open-ended; they apply over time and space. Laws may require adjustments over time, as they are adjusted based on observation. This example is found when a previous law isn't accurate on mountaintops where the pressure is different, which alters the boiling point of water.
• Third Feature: Expressible as hypothetical statements, like "If there were a crow, it would be black" (based on observation/experience). The ability to state a hypothetical scenario.
• Fourth Feature: Higher generality means a greater chance of being a law of nature. Low-level generalizations do not necessarily affect the universe, whereas fundamental laws do. The example of the melting point of lead or birds with three legs.

Laws of Nature: Overall

• Knowledge of laws enables prediction of future occurrences and events
• Laws frequently undergo revision or modification as further observations refine or expand our understanding. Examples include aspects of Newton's laws (gravity) being modified by Einstein's theory.

Explanation in the Context of Science

• Explanations in science often seek a "why" rather than just a "how".
• Laws of nature describe, while theories explain.
• Scientific theories may involve unobservable entities not detected through our senses.

Theories

• Theories are not definitively proven but rather inductively confirmed.
• Scientific theories involve a process of induction (drawing general conclusions from specific observations). Deduction doesn't always work.
• Theories are not rejected on one single observation, and it takes a lot of contradictory evidence to discredit a theory. They are generally supported by bundles of related claims.

Inductively Confirming Theories

• Theories are based on empirical observation and tested repeatedly. A single contradictory observation can falsify a theory.
• Theories are supported by bundles or groups of statements rather than just single claims.
• If a prediction is wrong, this doesn't require the dismissal of the theory, but rather that circumstances outside of the model must be taken into account. Also, theories can be adjusted to fit new information.
• This is due to the interconnectedness of statements within each theory, such that if one is doubted, other related statements in the system may also become questionable.

Changing Laws and Theories

• Laws and theories can be revised or even overturned over time as newer, more encompassing explanations arise.
• Examples include the shift from the law of conservation of matter to the law of conservation of energy.
• In a scientific discovery, multiple contradictory pieces of evidence are needed before a well-established theory is abandoned.

Theories in Astronomy

• Theories can be evaluated by considerations such as simplicity (fewer principles needed).
• Simpler theories that adequately explain observations are favored over more complex ones. Ockham's razor ("entities should not be multiplied without necessity").
• Ptolemy's theory had to posit more epicycles to account for astronomical observations. Copernicus' theory was much simpler, but was, for a time, deemed inaccurate due to a lack of observation, This demonstrates how scientific theories can have different levels of simplicity and explanatory power.

Possibility

• Empirical possibility: Things that were once deemed impossible (like heavier-than-air flight) have become possible as our knowledge progressed.
• Technical possibility: Even when something is theoretically possible according to the laws of nature, it might not be technically achievable given our current abilities and technological limitations.
• Logical possibility: Something is logically possible if it does not contradict the rules of logic. A logical impossibility would contradict these rules.

This quiz delves into the philosophy of science and the nature of scientific knowledge as presented in the course. It covers key concepts such as regularities, laws of nature, and the work of Hospers. Test your understanding of how science seeks patterns in the world around us.