Fall 2011 - Institute of Medical Science - University of Toronto

VIEWPOINT
Darwin. Newton. Einstein. Popper?
By Adam Santoro
Should science students be formally educated in the philosophy of science?
Empirical science is characterized
by its ability to construct universal
statements, or ‘theories,’ from singular
observations 1 . The formulation of a theory
from singular observations requires inductive
logic; for example, with enough observed
instances of objects falling to the ground
when dropped, one inductively infers that all
objects fall to the ground when dropped. Yet
the philosophical justification for the use of
inductive logic in science is not entirely obvious.
Consider the following: if an observer
views 10 000 swans and notes that each swan
is white, is he justified in concluding that all
swans are white? Why or why not? The lack
of justification for the use of inductive logic
is aptly named the ‘problem of induction.’
There is no universally-accepted solution to
this problem, despite the efforts of some of
the greatest thinkers to have lived.
Karl Popper proposed that science should not
be defined by its use of inductive methods to
construct theories, since in his view there is
no such thing as confirmation by evidence 1 .
To Popper, the solution to the problem of
induction was simple: no justification exists
for the use of inductive logic to formulate
universal statements. Instead, empirical science
is demarcated from pseudo-science by a
principle of ‘falsifiability.’ Theories are never
confirmed or made more probable. Rather,
Popper’s principle proposes that scientists
should try to falsify theories, and those
theories that best withstand falsification are
‘corroborated.’ Popper’s idea is ingenious, as
it shifts the focus away from inductive logic
and onto deductive logic. If a theory does not
withstand such a test, then it is inarguably
deduced that it is false. Nonetheless, Popper’s
philosophy is not without its faults. Hypothetico-deductivists
contend that – Wait a
moment. Hypothetico-deductivist? Popper?
Isn’t he the guy on the popcorn box?
Science education at numerous ‘top’ universities
does not include requisite training
in the philosophical issues underpinning
scientific practice. When does evidence sufficiently
justify a theory? How do we know
when inductive inference provides us with
true knowledge? Students must partake in
self-study to answer these questions – if they
are inquisitive. But are science students failing
to benefit from a formal education in the
philosophy of science?
A general understanding of the philosophy
of science is clearly advantageous for science
students. A philosophical foundation can allow
students to tackle numerous contentious
issues – such as the interpretation of negative
results. Above all, it can teach students to
think; it can teach them to consider science
from a broader perspective, and to eliminate
inherent biases in their thought processes.
Students will no doubt formulate their own
opinions on important philosophical issues;
they may, like Hempel 1 , argue that diversity,
variety, and precision of evidence are of upmost
importance, or they may be predictionists
and assert that scientific truth can only be
validated by the confirmation of novel predictions.
However, if these opinions do not
arise via consideration from formal education,
then they inevitably develop from personal
contemplation, subconscious (or even
conscious) bias from the literature, and opinions
of their supervisor and colleagues. Thus,
students may not be fully equipped with the
knowledge and perspective necessary for insightful
deliberation.
Albert Einstein wrote to a colleague 2 : “When
Image: The School of Athens, (1510-1511), Raphael.
31 | IMS MAGAZINE FALL 2011 PROSTATE CANCER