Philosophy of Science

[ryanatau]

I've notice lately the trend in believing that science is the best resource to find "knowledge" (for the subjectivists, pragmatists, etc. notice I put quotations around knowledge). However, like any other belief, I do not think science should just get a pass because of what it has produced (mainly modern technology). I am interested in how people will respond to two problems: 1) the demarcation problem or what separates science from non-science (e.g. astrology); and 2) the problem of induction.

The problem of induction is especially interesting because it seems to question the very thing most scientists, and laymen, believe science is--rational. The problem of induction says that any type of empirical evidence (verification) actually begs the question. Basically, when I say something is verified through tests what rational reason do I have to believe tests actually verify anything? Well, we would say that tests have been verified because they have been tested. So the thing we are trying to justify, that test verify claims, is its own justification. A very simple, and pretty stupid example: I want to test that the sun will rise every day and then predict that it will rise in the future. The first day I hypothesis that the sun will rise and it does. I do the same test over a period of time and then make the prediction that the sun will rise tomorrow. I justify this by saying every day was like the day before it. But what justification do I have that tomorrow will be like every other day? That today was like yesterday and yesterday like the day before that so tomorrow must be like today? This begs the question. David Hume suggested that all of our empirical proofs are actually just habits of the mind and are not grounded in reason. I wonder what does everyone think about this?

[ZNFYRH]

I understand what you are saying, but the tests are not their own justification.

Sometimes the hypothesis is incomplete. What usually happens is a hypothesis becomes a theory which becomes a law, or a mathematical formula. Then one day something comes along that doesn't support the former established concept.

Instead of invalidating that original theory/law/whatever, instead it is discovered that the theory is incomplete. The best example of this is the inclusion of Gamma into the equations for velocity and time.

[ryanatau]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Sometimes the hypothesis is incomplete. What usually happens is a hypothesis becomes a theory which becomes a law, or a mathematical formula.

But how do you know the law will work? What justifies our belief in the law? Verification, but relying on verification is unjustifiable. Here is a good article about The Problem of Induction

[ZNFYRH]

You don't know the law will work. You assume because, until then, it is complete enough to accommodate known circumstances.

Our belief in the law is justified because it has been observed to be correct so many times. Notice the word "observed." The accuracy of the law has been detected with our senses, by multiple people, repeatedly.

Induction is Logic. Science isn't necessarily about Logic. You can use Science and the support it has observed to establish premises, but the reverse isn't true. You can't treat empirical observation as simple induction.

The very process of induction is part of inference, which by definition is drawing a conclusion without direct observation.

And the nice thing about the more rationally minded in Science is that when the law doesn't describe what they are observing they go "back to the drawing board."

[Zhavric]

Quote by: ryanatau I am interested in how people will respond to two problems: 1) the demarcation problem or what separates science from non-science (e.g. astrology); and 2) the problem of induction.

Neither of these are problems. They're misunderstandings of science & logic.

Non-science is anything without a definite answer. "Was that baseball game a good game?" Isn't a scientific question. It's too subjective. Any parameters we invent will be different from person to person nor do we have any justification for them. Is a high scoring game a good game? Is a game in which a player is injured a good game? Is an important game a good game?

Far too subjective.

Any question with a definite yes, no or specific answer is a scientific question. "Was a game played on June 3rd 2004?" "Was so and so in attendance?" "What was the final score?" These are questions we can employ the scientific method to answer.

Science is a tool for understanding the natural world. That's all. We don't need science to tell us what our morals are (but science can help us understand why we developed morality). Simply because a tool cannot perform a function it was never intended for doesn't negate the value of that tool. A hammer is useless for welding bits of metal together... does that mean we should "doubt" hammers and not use them to hammer nails? Certainly not.

As for induction? It's not a problem in the slightest.

Consistant observations are just that. Consistant. So long as we enjoy a consensus, we can make determinations about our world. The argument you've presented is just another in a long line of "Science is a religion" arguments which all end the same way: the anti-science crowd always has to radically re-define faith, broadening it to make it encompass any sort of belief. This arguemnt is useless because it posits believing a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father existed is on an even level with 1+1=2 which is asinine.

[ryanatau]

Quote by: ZNFYRH You don't know the law will work. You assume because, until then, it is complete enough to accommodate known circumstances. Our belief in the law is justified because it has been observed to be correct so many times. Notice the word "observed." The accuracy of the law has been detected with our senses, by multiple people, repeatedly. Induction is Logic. Science isn't necessarily about Logic. You can use Science and the support it has observed to establish premises, but the reverse isn't true. You can't treat empirical observation as simple induction. The very process of induction is part of inference, which by definition is drawing a conclusion without direct observation. And the nice thing about the more rationally minded in Science is that when the law doesn't describe what they are observing they go "back to the drawing board."

Yes and observed is exactly the problem. How do we know that tomorrow will be like yesterday. Empirical observations are not grounded in reason, it begs the question.

[ryanatau]

Quote by: Zhavric Neither of these are problems. They're misunderstandings of science & logic.

yes and that is why some of the most brilliant people have tryed to answer these problems and failed.

Quote by: Zhavric Non-science is anything without a definite answer. "Was that baseball game a good game?" Isn't a scientific question. It's too subjective. Any parameters we invent will be different from person to person nor do we have any justification for them. Is a high scoring game a good game? Is a game in which a player is injured a good game? Is an important game a good game?

yes "is a baseball game good" clearly is not science. However, is astrology science? The criterion that it must have a definite answer does not make something science. Is creationism science? I would say no, but it claims to have a definite answer to a problem. It is not subjective.

Science is a tool for understanding the natural world. That's all. We don't need science to tell us what our morals are (but science can help us understand why we developed morality). Simply because a tool cannot perform a function it was never intended for doesn't negate the value of that tool. A hammer is useless for welding bits of metal together... does that mean we should "doubt" hammers and not use them to hammer nails? Certainly not.

I never asked science to answer moral questions. I am asking for something that demarcates science. For example, Thomas Kuhn said science and non-science are demarcated because science operates inside a paradigm and scientists are just puzzle solvers inside of the paradigm.

Consistant observations are just that. Consistant. So long as we enjoy a consensus, we can make determinations about our world. The argument you've presented is just another in a long line of "Science is a religion" arguments which all end the same way: the anti-science crowd always has to radically re-define faith, broadening it to make it encompass any sort of belief. This arguemnt is useless because it posits believing a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father existed is on an even level with 1+1=2 which is asinine.

No the problem of induction is not a science is a religion statement. In fact I hold science way above religion. However, I do so because I understand the problem of induction and do not think it hinders science. Induction is verified with empirical observation, however, these observations are justified because they have always worked. I eat bread and know I will become full because I have always become full after eating bread. I have empirically observed that bread makes me full. But now what justifies my belief that empirical observations can lead to a prediction about the future? Well because they always have. It begs the question. The trouble is purely and epistemological one. Can science claim that it is finding truth or only that it is ruling out falses?

[ryanatau]

Quote by: Zhavric Any question with a definite yes, no or specific answer is a scientific question. "Was a game played on June 3rd 2004?" "Was so and so in attendance?" "What was the final score?" These are questions we can employ the scientific method to answer.

I am not asking what is a question that can be answer by science. I am asking this: when you see an answer to an explanation-seeking why question how do you know if it is science or not? What makes astronomy science and astrology non-science. There is clearly a difference, but what is this difference? Are there a set of criteria that can easily separate science form non-science?

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: ryantau Yes and observed is exactly the problem. How do we know that tomorrow will be like yesterday. Empirical observations are not grounded in reason, it begs the question.

We don't know that tomorrow will be like yesterday.

We infer it.

Yesterday was observed. We use it as the premise for what we infer about tomorrow.

Your final sentence is confused.

Empirical observations aren't "grounded" in anything. Inferring things based on empirical observations is reasonable, however. It's the best kind of reasoning, when you base your inferred conclusions off something observed.

[Alive]

I'm not going to argue with you because you are basically correct, but I do want to make one point.

Quote by: ryanatau I do not think science should just get a pass because of what it has produced (mainly modern technology).

Science does not get a pass because of technology, but because it has been incredibly successful at predicting things which no other system has ever been able to predict. If you want to claim that this predictive power is just a coincidence, have fun using your own system, I'll keep my faith (and it is faith) in science!

[ryanatau]

Quote by: ZNFYRH We don't know that tomorrow will be like yesterday. We infer it. Yesterday was observed. We use it as the premise for what we infer about tomorrow. Your final sentence is confused. Empirical observations aren't "grounded" in anything. Inferring things based on empirical observations is reasonable, however. It's the best kind of reasoning, when you base your inferred conclusions off something observed.

Thats false. Deduction would be the best type of reasoning. I think we are looking at the problem in two different ways. Let me agree with you that basing judgments off of empirical observations is a very good way to infer conclusions from. My concerns are not practical, there are purely philosophical. Let me put the problem of induction this way:

We gather empirical data and from that infer that other similar observations will be relatively the same. This is call the uniformity of nature. But how do we gather that this uniformity exists? We gather empirical data from which we infer that the uniformity exists. So we beg the question (which means the conclusion is also one of the premises). Think about it this way: if you wanted to convince someone that empirical inferences are rational what would you say? That up until know they have always word. In other words, you are using an empirical inference to prove that empirical inferences are justified.

[ryanatau]

Quote by: Alive I'm not going to argue with you because you are basically correct, but I do want to make one point. Science does not get a pass because of technology, but because it has been incredibly successful at predicting things which no other system has ever been able to predict. If you want to claim that this predictive power is just a coincidence, have fun using your own system, I'll keep my faith (and it is faith) in science!

No i am a pretty firm believer in science. And yes predictive power is a huge argument for science. I just wanted to bring up some interesting topics in the philosophy of science because most people do not know they exist.

I do agree with you, partly, that science can be a faith, but it does not have to be (I do not know if you are familiar with Thomas Kuhn or Paul Feyerabend) but they might agree with you and I would too, with some people, and in times of normal science. However, I think this little bit of faith is what drives science to greater heights. But at the same time I do not believe faith is the right word because unlike faith scientist have a justified reason to believe in what they do and with philosophers of science constantly questioning scientific methods it seems to contrast with faith never questioning their methods.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: ryanatau yes and that is why some of the most brilliant people have tryed to answer these problems and failed.

Then you shouldn't have any trouble listing 4 of these people along with the works they published dealing with these problems. Please do so in your next post or we'll call this what it is: a fallacious appeal to authority.

yes "is a baseball game good" clearly is not science. However, is astrology science?

Of course not. It doesn't follow the scientific method.

Can science claim that it is finding truth or only that it is ruling out falses?

Armed with logic, this isn't a problem.

[Alive]

Quote by: ryanatau No i am a pretty firm believer in science. And yes predictive power is a huge argument for science.

Predictive power is, of course, exactly what the problem of induction points out we cannot use as evidence in favor of science, because we only think that science has predictive power because it has had predictive power in itself. Induction is accepted on "faith". Actually, induction is probably an evolved human trait, but the point is we have no justification to believe it, yet we still must do so, and do do so.

But at the same time I do not believe faith is the right word because unlike faith scientist have a justified reason to believe in what they do and with philosophers of science constantly questioning scientific methods it seems to contrast with faith never questioning their methods.

I don't get you, isn't the entire point of this thread that scientists don't have a justified reason to believe in what they do??

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: ryanatau Deduction would be the best type of reasoning.

You aren't reading correctly.

I don't care what kind of reasoning you're using. I said that it is the best kind of reasoning when the premises are based on empirical observations.

You are asking a philosophical question but brining in empiricism, which is anything but philosophical.

The "uniformity of nature" concept is, in the end, purely philosophical. It is derived from the best kind of inferences based on empirical observations, but in the end we don't really know what will happen because there are so many things about which we don't know.

Your question is a valid one of how to convince others about the validity of past observations. In the purely objective, scientific perspective, I have no way of saying that my past observations mean my inference is 100% correct.

Is that what you mean?

As for your final sentence, I see what you are saying. That because I've always observed that the inferences based on observations are correct, that I am inferring that future inferences based on observations will also be correct.

But again, that isn't empirical to do that... because it's making an inference. It's still philosophical.

Another way to put it is that when you make an inference based on something that hasn't been observed, it is not guaranteed to be correct.

What you are talking about is the only paradox in logic; its inability to infer that it is correct.

[ryanatau]

Quote by: Zhavric Then you shouldn't have any trouble listing 4 of these people along with the works they published dealing with these problems. Please do so in your next post or we'll call this what it is: a fallacious appeal to authority.

Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Bas van Fraassen, Carl Hempel, Imre Lakatos, Grover Maxwell, A.J. Ayer, Pierre Duhem, W.V.O. Quine, Paul Feyerabend, Rudolf Carnap...the list goes on. If you are uintrested in these problems look up the "philosophy of science" the demarcation problem and the problem of induction are the basics. Also, scientific realism vs. anti-realism.

I am sure you have heard of most of the names listed above if you have any knowledge of science or the philosophy of science.
Links:

Thomas Kuhn, very influential Thomas Kuhn (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Karl Popper: Karl Popper (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
About the demarcation problem: demarcation problem: Information from Answers.com
THis is Popper's view of the demarcation problem: Sir Karl Popper "Science as Falsification," 1963
The Problem of Induction

I hope these links help. I know I am not the most articulate person.

[ryanatau]

Quote by: Alive Predictive power is, of course, exactly what the problem of induction points out we cannot use as evidence in favor of science, because we only think that science has predictive power because it has had predictive power in itself. Induction is accepted on "faith". Actually, induction is probably an evolved human trait, but the point is we have no justification to believe it, yet we still must do so, and do do so.

Well, most philosophers of science believe induction is just a habit of the mind, in other words a psychological problem.

I don't get you, isn't the entire point of this thread that scientists don't have a justified reason to believe in what they do??

No my point was just to get a discussion about some of the fundamental problems in the philosophy of science. I never really meant to take a side.

[ryanatau]

Quote by: ZNFYRH You are asking a philosophical question but brining in empiricism, which is anything but philosophical.

Empiricism is actually very philosophical. There is a whole empirical movement in philosophy it is actually very interesting. Such groups as the logical positivist, if you are interested.

As for your final sentence, I see what you are saying. That because I've always observed that the inferences based on observations are correct, that I am inferring that future inferences based on observations will also be correct.

Let me ask a question: How would you validate that copper conducts electricity?

[ZNFYRH]

ryantau

I don't do the Rhetorical Question game.

What's your point?

[ryanatau]

Quote by: ZNFYRH ryantau I don't do the Rhetorical Question game. What's your point?

Sorry, it was not meant as a rhetorical question. Mostly, I just wanted to understand how you believe verification happens and I thought an example would help me understand. Any ways I think we are actually arguing the same point, but there is a misunderstanding.

The problem of induction was created by an empiricist, David Hume, which I think he uses to confirms that a posteriori knowledge is the only possible kind and any attempt to infer beyond this creates a logical fallacy. However, Hume, and many since him, believe that these inferences are a habit of the mind because of our love to create order--or so the argument goes. So, what I am talking about are these inferences and not empiricism, However, these inferences are used in science.

Also, I think you would be interested in the scientific realism vs anti-realism debate, if you are not familiar with it already here is a link to an article: Scientific Realism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)