10.07.2015 Views

Great Ideas of Philosophy

Great Ideas of Philosophy

Great Ideas of Philosophy

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

V. These debates illustrate a far less tidy world <strong>of</strong> science than the one depicted in textbooks. For all its technicaland theoretical achievements, science is a human product and will always bear the mark <strong>of</strong> its maker.A. In The Structure <strong>of</strong> Scientific Revolutions (1962), Thomas Kuhn drew attention to the guild-like nature <strong>of</strong>the scientific community.1. Kuhn referred to this as “normal science,” to distinguish it from those radical departures that constitutetruly revolutionary changes.2. A key feature <strong>of</strong> this enterprise is that the research guided by such considerations unearths only whatwas known in advance. The same set <strong>of</strong> commitments and method, the same paradigm, dictates thatproblems are chosen to the extent that they promise fairly ready solutions.B. Karl Popper, the eminent philosopher <strong>of</strong> science and logician, criticized Kuhn’s reliance on the concept <strong>of</strong>ruling paradigms as “the myth <strong>of</strong> framework.”1. Popper himself had made an important contribution to philosophy <strong>of</strong> science in his critique <strong>of</strong>verificationism and his alternative methodological standard, falsificationism.2. In the scientific positivism <strong>of</strong> the 1930s and 1940s, the meaning <strong>of</strong> statements was nothing more thanthe method by which they could be verified. Any statements that did not lend themselves to empiricalmodes <strong>of</strong> verification were essentially meaningless or merely argumentative.3. Popper observed that such a standard would render all the laws <strong>of</strong> science nonsensical. He replaced theconcept <strong>of</strong> verification with falsificationism: Though a law cannot be verified an infinite number <strong>of</strong>times, it need only be falsified once to lose credibility.Recommended Reading:Hempel, Carl. Aspects <strong>of</strong> Scientific Explanation. Free Press, 1965.Van Fraassen, Bas. The Scientific Image. Oxford University Press, 1980.Questions to Consider:1. If the laws <strong>of</strong> science do not reflect reality as it “really” is, how should we account for practical success?2. How do the laws <strong>of</strong> physics “lie,” and what standard is there for telling the difference between the truth and thelies?3. Is the culture <strong>of</strong> science hostile to criticism and novelty <strong>of</strong> thought?12©2004 The Teaching Company Limited Partnership

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!