Philosophy of science: the central issues
The pioneer in this area was Michel Gauquelin, who examined the careers and times of birth of 25,000 Frenchmen. Astrology suggests that people bom under certain signs or planets are likely to adopt certain occupations: for example, the influence of the warlike planet Mars tends to produce soldiers or athletes, while Venus has an artistic influence. Notably, Gauquelin found no significant correlation between careers and either sun sign, moon sign, or ascendant sign. (48)to-process
here astrology? does not appear worse than the best of scientific theories, which also resist falsification until alternative theories arise. (49)to-process
Creation-Science Is Not Science (56)to-process
In December 1981 I appeared as an expert witness for the plaintiffs and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in their successful challenge o f Arkansas Act 590, which demanded that teachers give “balanced treat ment” to “creation-science” and evolutionary ideas. (56)to-process
It is simply not possible to give a neat definition—specifying necessary and sufficient characteristics—which separates all and only those things that have ever been called “science.” The concept “science” is not as easily definable as, for example, the concept “triangle.” (57)to-process
it is an empirical enterprise about the real world of sensation (57)to-process
specifically, science looks for unbroken, blind, natural regularities (laws) (57)to-process
A major part o f the scientific enterprise involves the use o f law to effect explanation. (57)to-process
The explanation excludes those things that did not happen. (58)to-process
The laws indicate what is going to happen: (58)to-process
A genuine scientific theory lays itself open to check against the real world: the scientist can see if the inferences made in explanation and prediction actually obtain in nature (58)to-process
A body of science must be falsifiable (58)to-process
Ultimately, a scientist must be prepared to reject his theory. (58)to-process
The Creation Research Society (with 500 full members, all of whom must have an advanced degree in a scientific/ technological area), demands that its members sign a statement affirming that they take the Bible as literally hue. (62)to-process
The Nature and Necessity o f Scientific Revolutions (104)to-process
Scientific revolutions are here taken to be those noncumulative developmental episodes in which an older paradigm is re placed in whole or in part by an incompatible new one. (104)to-process
n the process of being assimilated, the second must displace the first. (108)to-process
O b jectivity7 V alue Judgment,and Theory Choice (120)to-process
First, a theory should be accurate: within its domain, that is, consequences deducible from a theory should be in demonstrated agreement with the results of existing experiments and observations (121)to-process
a theory should be consis tent, not only internally or with itself, but also with other currently ac cepted theories applicable to related aspects of nature (121)to-process
it should have broad scope: in particular, a theory’s consequences should extend far beyond the particular observations, laws, or subtheories it was initially de signed to explain. (121)to-process
it should be simple, bringing order to phenomena that in its absence would be individually isolated and, as a set, confused (121)to-process
a theory should be fruit ful of new’ research findings: it should, that is, disclose new phenomena or previously unnoted relationships among those already known. (121)to-process
Physical Theory and Experiment (273)to-process
so long as the experiment lasts, the theory should remain waiting, under strict orders to stay outside the door o f the laboratory; it should keep silent and leave the scientist without disturbing him while he faces the facts directly (274)to-process
The report that the observer will give us of his experiment should be a faithful and scrupulously exact re production of the phenomena, and should not let us even guess what system the scientist places his confidence in or distrusts (274)to-process
they want to see in its results only a confirmation o f their theory (274)to-process ❧ Confirmation Bias is a disruptor of making discoveries and good observations when conducting experiments concerning theories in which there is faith. (to the end of the paragraph) This is also the case in experiments against preferred theories; there can be a selection towards disconfirming the theory.
we must accept the results o f experiment just as they present themselves with all that is unforeseen and accidental in them. (274)to-process ❧ Seems like this is advice to try to bypass some of the claims onto the fact of scientific investigation made by Kuhn and Lakatos. The urge here is to never ‘correct’ data in order to fit a model, but the leave the resulting data, in its imperfections, and suffer the consequences either way.
TTte chemist and the physiologist when they make use o f physical instruments, e.g., the thermometer, the manometer, the calorimeter, the galvanometer, and the saccharimeter, implicitly admit the accuracy of D o h em ■ P hysical. T heory akd E x p e r im e n t - | 259 C h - î T h e D i I-QUINE T h esis and U nderdeterm in atio n the theories justifying the use of these pieces of apparatus as well as of the theories giving meaning to the abstract ideas of temperature, pressure (275)to-process ❧ From “The chemist” through the page break to “temperature, pressure.”
When doing research with non-specialist tools and models, you might be able to do the theory separation. When you use these tools and concepts, however, you may admit certain theories that are under examination.
An Experiment in Physics C an Never Condem n an Isolated Hypothesis but O nly a W hole Theoretical Group (276)to-process
that is what 1 call an experiment of application. This experiment does not aim at discovering whether accepted theories are accurate or not; it merely intends to draw on these theories. (276)to-process
The prediction of the phenomenon, whose nonproduction is to cut off debate, does not derive from the proposition challenged if taken by itself, but from the proposition at issue joined to that whole group of theories; if the predicted phenomenon is not produced, not only is the proposition questioned at fault, but so is the whole theoretical scaffolding used by the physicist. (277)to-process ❧ I wonder how useful publishing semantic data relating to the theories used in an experiment, the results of the experiment, links to the reports, etc. would be.
Unlike the reduction to absurdity employed by geometers, experi mental contradiction does not have the power to transform a physical hypothesis into an indisputable truth; in order to confer this power on it, it would be necessary to enumerate completely, the various hypotheses which may cover a determinate group of phenomena; but the physicist is never sure he has exhausted all die imaginable assumptions (282)to-process
The Problem o f Induction (442)to-process
At this stage I can disregard the fact that the believers in inductive logic entertain an idea of probability… I can do so because the diffi culties mentioned are not even touched by an appeal to probability For if a certain degree of probability is to be assigned to statements based on inductive inference, then this will have to be justified by invoking a new principle of induction, appropriately modified. And this new principle in its turn will have to be justified, and so on. (444)to-process
and not yet justified in any way (446)to-process ❧ It seems like we would like to test those theories which sound plausible; which have some justification.
This use of justification may be different from popper’s but he does use “in any way.”