Epistemology of Science Lecture 4.1 PDF

Epistemology Individuals Thinking about Knowledge and Knowing COMMST 193 REDDOCK Epistemology Comes from the two Greek words: “episteme” and “logos”. Episteme: Knowledge/Understanding Logos: Argument/Reason/Facts...

Epistemology Individuals Thinking about Knowledge and Knowing COMMST 193 REDDOCK Epistemology Comes from the two Greek words: “episteme” and “logos”. Episteme: Knowledge/Understanding Logos: Argument/Reason/Facts 2 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Epistemology Comes from the two Greek words: “episteme” and “logos”. Episteme: Knowledge/Understanding Logos: Argument/Reason/Facts What do we mean by knowledge? Is it Cognition or is it Intuition? Can it be both? Are facts indisputable? 3 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Epistemology What do you think? What do we mean by knowledge? Do scientists rely on Cognition (analytical thinking) or is it Intuition (instinctive knowledge)? Can it be both? Are facts indisputable? 4 Words to consider: Key concepts Belief Knowledge Justification Truth Order of things? Theorizing. Hypothesizing Observation Experimentation Gathering of evidence Conclusion  Epistemology: Key Questions cont’d What is knowledge? What do we mean when we say that we know something? What is the source of knowledge, and How do we know if knowledge is reliable? What is the limitation and scope of knowledge? How do Physicists Know What 7 they Know Epistemology: Key Questions cont’d What does it mean to "know" something? What is the difference between knowledge and belief? What is the relationship between the observer and the observed, the knower and the known? (University of Wisconsin) 8 Philosophical Approaches to the Scientific Process and the role of Skepticism  Three philosophers: A three- stage approach Scientific inquiry is based on knowledge (with some limitations). Three stages of scientific inquiry (1) an opening stage when the proposition (hypothesis) is presented (2) an argumentation stage in which hypotheses are put forward and tested (3) a closing stage where a conclusion is arrived at on whether to accept a proposition as knowledge or not The Epistemology of Scientific Evidence  Charles S. Pierce Realistic View Scientific inquiry takes place in a finite amount of time with limited resources for collecting evidence The scientific enterprise remained open to enquiry, but somewhat tentative findings Scientific knowledge cannot be held with absolute certainty But many scientific findings can be accepted as ‘‘substantially certain’’ knowledge but he denied that this kind A “fallibilistic approach to the epistemology of scientific inquiry has recently led to a different way of modeling the notion of knowledge in epistemology Philosopher Scientist by seeing it as a defeasible concept”. Mathematician 1839-1914 The Epistemology of Scientific Evidence  Karl Popper Principle of Falsifiability: Any hypothesis must be disprovable. Having survived disproving, hypothesis is credible However, the hypothesis is always regarded as defeasible, and be subject to continued testing, subject to continuous testing. If the hypothesis is falsified by such testing, it must be given up There is a critical examination process: that involves a procedure of conjecture and refutation Process begins with the formulation of a problem, goes through a process of marshaling evidence Then a process of ‘‘severe critical examination’’, critical discussion and comparison of competing hypotheses (Popper.Popper sees this inquiry procedure as a trial and error process that goes through degrees of improvement. At its closing stage it reaches an outcome that is provisionally Scientific Philosopher acceptable as proved, once the discussion is settled by the scientific community Photo Credit: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy The Epistemology of Scientific Evidence  Thomas Kuhn After completing his Ph.D. in theoretical physics in 1949, Kuhn switched entirely to the history of science The Structure of Scientific Revolutions published in 1962 very influential to Philosophy of science, and it also had a tremendous impact in the social and behavioral sciences, most of all in the sociology of science. Because if the term “paradigm shift” Normal science is always confronted with anomalies, i.e., with phenomena or problems that behave contrary to the expectations supplied by the paradigm. When the existing explanations do not work, a radical new explanation is proposed The new explanation has to gain traction among the scientific community to be accepted. These new explanations have to be consistent with the values of Physicist Scientific Philosopher the scientific community.: values comprise accuracy, scope, consistency, fruitfulness, and explanatory power. 1922-1996 Portait: Davi.Trip Photo Credit: 2018  POPPER: FALSIFICATION Scientific process is a cycle of conjecture and refutation Scientists must be willing to make bold propositions Scientists must be willing to defend their propositions Scientists are imaginative, creative risk-takers We can never truly “confirm” a theory After years of a theory not being falsified: Theory has survived falsification attempts Theories that could not be falsified were “pseudoscience” – e.g. Freudian propositions KHUN: PARADIGMS The term “paradigm shift” was not used extensively by Khun, but has wide appeal PARADIGMS Normal science - Emergence of new paradigms Normal science: puzzles solved within the confines of existing theories Extraordinary science: Anomalies that must be solved outside of existing paradigm Miasma theory - Germ Theory Cholera caused by bad air - Cholera caused by bacteria New paradigms were not counter cultural to science. SCIENCE STANDARDS  Scientific Investigations Use a Variety of Methods  Scientific Knowledge is Based on Empirical Evidence  Scientific Knowledge is Open to Revision in Light of New Evidence  Scientific Models, Laws, Mechanisms, and Theories Explain Natural Phenomena  Science is a Way of Knowing  Scientific Knowledge Assumes an Order and Consistency in Natural Systems  Science is a Human Endeavor  Science Addresses Questions About the Natural and Material World Next Generation Science Standards (Chapter 5) EPISTEMIC TRUST IN SCIENCE HOW COMMON IS TRUST IN MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES? WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE TUSKEGEE EXPERIMENT WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE TUSKEGEE EXPERIMENT WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE TUSKEGEE EXPERIMENT CDC: The Untreated Syphilis Study at Tuskegee Timeline McGill: 40 Years of Human Experimentation in America: T he Tuskegee Study WHAT CAN SCIENCE EDUCATORS DO? For Further Thought or Discussion What are the possible legacies of the Tuskegee Experiment mentioned in Chapter 5, How Do Individuals Think about Knowledge and Knowing? (Science Denial Why it Happens & What to do About it) Was anyone ever held responsible? Was the harm ever repaired? Reflections? References Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2020 https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/ Nickles T, ed. Thomas Kuhn. Cambridge University Press; 2003. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Kuhn, Thomas S. (1922–96).2001, Pages 8171-8176 https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/00282-5 David Merritt. 2020.A Philosophical Approach to MOND Assessing the Milgromian Research Program in Cosmology , pp. 1 - 19 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108610926.002[Opens in a new window] Publisher: Cambridge University Press How do Physicists know what they know? https://www.phy.ilstu.edu/pte/310content/nature/Scientific_Epistemology.pdf References University of Wisconsin, Madison. https://researchguides.library.wisc.edu/c.php? g=178198&p=1459272 PRESENTATION TITLE 28 Scientific findings 29  Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy TOPIC ONE Subtitle  32 PRESENTATION TITLE AGENDA Topic one Topic two Topic three Topic four TITLE AND CONTENT