About Philosophy 9^th ed., Chapter 4
Philosophy of Science

The Place of Science in the Modern World

A tale of four modern thinkers: "whose works, more than those of any others, have made our world what it is today: all scientists or at least (in the case of Marx & Freud) would be scientists.

Darwin: a biologist: theory of evolution by natural selection

laid at the foundations of modern biology
profoundly influenced our view of what we are and our place in nature

Einstein: a physicist: theories of relativity & matter-energy

paved the way for development of nuclear power
shape our speculations about the overall nature of the universe

Freud: a psychologist: psychoanalysis

pioneer of psychotherapy
profound cultural influence

in the arts
sociopolitical theory (Marcuse)
folk psychology: his ideas on unconscious (wishes & other thoughts) now a commonplace of our self understanding

scientific character of his work hotly disputed.

perhaps because its so culturally controversial
and "scientific" is honorific: credential conferring: USDA approved as true

Marx: political-economist: Communist theory

Proposed a theory of socioeconomic development

by way of successive revolutionary upheavals: "Workers of the world, unite!"
leading to a utopian classless society: "To each according to to his needs, from each according to his abilities!"

profoundly influential

in politics (obviously):

a large percentage of the world's population still living under a nominally Marxist regime in China
a larger percentage once did
historic importance of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia and consequent developments

inspiration to labor & revolutionary movements world-wide
rise of fascism: Soviet role in WWII in defeating fascism
Subsequent Cold War: McCarthyism; Vietnam

scientific character of his work also hotly disputed

perhaps because its so culturally controversial
and "scientific" is honorific: credential conferring: USDA approved as true

Moral of the Story: In science we trust.

Shown by the disputed cases: "scientific" as an honorific
Reasons: why we trust

technological power conferring

if knowledge is power then power evidences knowledge
mastery of things evidences understanding of them, enabling

prediction : e.g., of eclipses & nowadays the weather
control : e.g., in technological applications

electric lights
our cars

cross-cultural & transpersonal impartiality:

unlike subjective & culture-bound nature of religious "truth"
scientific truth is supposed to be

objective: true regardless of what anyone believes
and universal: true for one and all, alike.

Scientific Realism: things really are as science determines (or ultimately will determine) them to be.

alternately put: science discovers objective truths.
vs. naive realism: things really are as they seem

credits the superficial appearances of things -- how they seem -- as real

their colors, tastes, etc.
things are -- in their own true natures -- just as they present themselves to our senses

may be the first word on things insofar as science is empirical (based on observation & experiment)
but it's not the last word: that comes from scientific theory

glass seems solid: but it's really a supercooled liquid
dolphins seem more like marlins (big fish) than us (humans) but they're really (being mammals) more like us.
this table seems completely solid but it's really -- scientifically speaking -- mostly empty space

vs. religious dogmatism: things really are as revealed religious teaching says

so-called "revelations" to the contrary notwithstanding

the earth really does revolve around the relatively stationary sun

even though The Bible says God once, temporarily, "made the sun stand still in the sky"
implying that before and since, it's the sun that moves
the Copernican sun central hypothesis wins

it's a better scientific hypothesis
better predicts, explains, & systematizes astronomical observations or facts

predicts the motions of the planets
predicted the existence of yet undiscovered ones, e.g., Pluto
unified nicely with Newton's theory:
- centrifugal motion + gravitational attraction
- + facts about the mass of the sun and planets
- + Copernican (sun-central) hypothesis
- yield precise astronomical predictions
better control: how to get the spacecraft to mars.

the human species really did evolve from apelike ancestors over the course of hundred thousands of years

what the book of Genesis says notwithstanding

the earth is not so old, Genesis says: Adam to Jesus (42?? generations?) + 2000 years = 6-thousand-and-some according to the Jewish calendar.
species were directly created in their present forms, all at the same time, just that long ago (at the beginning), it says.

the evolutionary hypothesis wins

it's a better scientific hypothesis
better predicts and better explains & systematizes biological & geological observations or facts
- e.g., fossils that are way older than Genesis says
- evidence the earth is way older and was long uninhabited
systematization: evolution a high order theory informing other lower level hypotheses
- genetic theory developed in part to explain the mechanisms of evolution
- DNA and biochemistry developed to explain the mechanisms of genetics
yields powerful results: in medicine & biotechnology

revealingly Creationists who oppose evolution argue either

that creationism is a scientific theory too and its scientifically better

and explains & predicts the facts as well or better than evolution
unfortunately, no noteworthy biologist agrees

or that the evolutionary theory is just as unscientific as creationism

they're both just unproved "theories"
you can always save the theory in the face of recalcitrant observations
- Creationism & the geological evidence: God made a pre-aged world world some 6000 years ago
- Evolutionism & missing transitional links: the gappiness of the fossil record
  - we just haven't found them yet -- very hard to find: fossils are rare: many transitional species with few members & short runs probably vanished with leaving any fossil trace.

Science fuels our imaginations:
- science fiction
- sci-fi religiosity: Heaven's Gate
our vision of the future
- not out of Revelation
- out science fiction

Francis Bacon and the Foundations of the Scientific Method

Background: the dispute about the place of the Earth in the the Heavens

The Ptolemaic Geocentric Theory vs. Copernican Heliocentric Theory

Ptolemy

Earth is at the center of the universe
heavenly bodies (fixed in various celestial spheres) rotate around the earth
explains most observed facts: trouble about the "retrograde motion" of the planets

this was explainable by epicycles
it was messy and complicated: ad hoc

Copernicus

Sun is the center of the universe
the earth along with the other planets revolve around the sun
explains the same facts: more natural & simpler explanation of retrograde motion

Raises sticky methodological issues

both theories could "save the phenomena": predict the observed motions of the planets
the decision turned in part on such things as simplicity & naturalness of explanation
plus certain global theoretic considerations: clash of world-views

Galileo's observations of "imperfections" in the heavens

moons of Jupiter & details
craters on earth's moon
sunspots

contrary to the supposed purity of "the celestial realm"

"Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven"
meaning infallibly . . . like the stars in their courses
heaven understood literally as outer space

Ptolemaic theory more consistent with scripture & tradition

e.g., the Sun standing still
hence Copernicus' instrumentalism or fictionalism
hence Galileo's' imprisonment & forced retraction

Francis Bacon (1561-1626): First Modern Philosopher of Science: about 30 years Descartes' senior

In a work called New Organon he undertook to lay down rules for scientific inquiry
contrast & compare

Aristotle's Organon: the instrument: collected works on logic
Descartes Rules for the Right Conduct of the Mind

Basic Opposition

Top down, theory driven, or deductive approach "now in fashion" that Bacon rejects (compare Rationalism)

Bacon's characterization

"flies form the senses and the particulars to the most general axioms,
and from these principles to the truth of which it takes for settled and immovable,
proceeds to judgment and to the discovery of middle axioms."

Bacon's estimation

appropriate to mathematics: the a priori sciences
and theology: there are no observable facts!

no natural facts
only supernatural facts

The bottom up, observation-driven, inductive approach Bacon proposes (compare Empiricism)

Bacon's characterization

"derives axioms from the particulars,
rising by gradual and unbroken ascent,
so that it arrives at the most general axioms last of all" (357)

Bacon's estimation:

"as yet untried"
but the appropriate method for the empirical or natural sciences

Bacon's Method

Aim of science: understanding of "forms"

characteristics of things: e.g., heat -- some things are hot
whose nature science investigates: e.g., the nature or causes of hotness

what is it to be hot
what makes something hot

Method: step by step

make a "muster or presentation" "in the manner of a history, without premature speculation",

i.e., prior to any (top-down) theoretical speculation (having endeavored as well as you can to clear your mind of any preconceived notions)
with an attitude of theory neutrality or naiveté
Collect samples of things hot and things not

compare and contrast: winnowing

list the features that all hot things share
and all not hot things lack

conclude: these features are what hotness is

the essence of heat
the nature of hotness

Aim of science is control of the phenomena:
- to understand what heat is
- is to know how to make heat
Application: Bacon's take on heat (being charitable :-)
- a kind of vibration
- having to do with expansion and contraction

Issue: Theory neutrality & scientific progress

Homely example
- independently of whether your hypothesis is acid or base you can equally well observe

that the litmus was put in the solution
and that it turned red

independently of whether you predicted rain or not you can equally well observe

that the sidewalk is getting wet from
what appears to be water falling from the sky

Theory Neutrality Hypothesis: science accumulates & systematizes a body of theory-neutral facts
Hence, scientific understanding is progressive: "unambiguously progressing towards better, more inclusive theories of the world" (259).

science is a growing body of observed & known facts

we keep adding facts & observations
rarely throwing anything out

growing ever better organized

as we hit on ever better classifications & characterizations
of all these facts we're finding and have found

And in this science is unlike Art & Religion

progressive character: contrast art

not just changes in style & emphasis (as in art)
but genuine progress: past theories are surpassed & supplanted by the new

linked to its objectivity: contrast religion

based on theory-neutral facts accessible to any competent observer
not on revelations accessible only to true believers

The Relation Between Theory and Observation

Newton's Synthesis: "They will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."

Had long been thought there was a huge metaphysical gulf between the two

the celestial realm: pure & subtle & well organized

the sun in moon & stars so regular in their courses
you can almost set your clocks by them! ;-)

the terrestrial realm: impure & gross & disorganized

things more irregular as with

monstrosities: animals born without limbs or heads or infertile
deviations from form

Scientific situation Newton inherited from his predecessors

Galileo's' Laws of terrestrial motion

e.g. falling bodies accelerate at 32 ft/sec./sec.

Kepler's Laws of Planetary motion

combined Copernican idea of heliocentrism
with elliptical planetary orbits
to provide specific laws of planetary motion

Newtonian Synthesis

From 3 laws of motion + the law of universal gravitation
1. inertia: bodies in motion remain in motion in straight lines · bodies at rest remain at rest unless acted upon by an outside force
2. the change of motion due to an outside force is proportional to the force impressed (F=ma) and is made in the direction in which the force is impressed
3. for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction
4. universal gravitation: any two bodies attract each other with a force varying directly as the product of their masses and inversely with the distance between them. f(a,b) = [m(a)*m(b)/(d(a,b)2]*g
Using calculus (of which he was the co-inventor) Newton deduced

Galileo's' laws: given certain assumptions about the mass of the earth.
Kepler's laws: given assumptions about the masses of the sun & earth & other planets

Issues raised by this

Greatest Scientific Achievement Ever (gets my vote)
seems pretty top-down (contrary Bacon's picture)

Starting with very general principles: the four laws
Newton proceeds to generate more particular principles

dealing with free falling bodies on earth: e.g., Galileo's' laws
dealing with the motions of the suns planets: Kepler's laws

Compromise: Theory Guided Observation -- experiment -- is the best methodological medicine

The experimental method or hypothetical deductive method
Use the theory or hypothesis + accepted facts:

the masses of the first seven planets & the sun
unaccountable deviations of the orbit of Neptune

to infer or predict yet to be observed things: there must be an eighth planet affecting the orbit of Neptune

observe whether things go or are as predicted
if so: the hypothesis is confirmed
if not: the hypothesis is disconfirmed or even refuted

in contrast Bacon's theory-naive muster of presentation

here we start with a theory to be tested
and this determines what to look at or observe
in experiments we set up specific situations to observe what results

Karl Popper and Falsifiability

As a young man Popper was struck by this contrast between Einstein's theory of relativity and Freudian psychoanalysis
- Einstein's theory made definite predictions which, if they failed, would refute the theory
- Freud's theory seemed not to make such predictions
  - whatever happened could be interpreted as consistent with Freudian "hypotheses"
  - example: the Oedipus complex hypothesis: All men want to kill their fathers and have sex with their mothers.
    - if you tell your therapist you want to kill your father and have sex with your mother that confirms the hypothesis
    - if you deny that you want to kill your father and have sex with your mother
      - then your manifesting resistance
      - showing that you really do (unconsciously) want to kill your father and have sex with your mother
  - win-win "predictions" like the Delphic Oracle's prediction: "If Croesus attacks Persia he will destroy a great empire."
    - What Croesus expected: Croesus' army defeats the Persians and the Persian empire is destroyed.
    - What happened: the Persians defeated Croesus' army and Croesus' empire was destroyed
Poppers insight
- immunity to falsification is no scientific virtue but a vice
  - a hypothesis that's consistent with whatever might happen
  - really tells us nothing about how the world is: they have no empirical or cognitive content
- falsifiability is the cardinal scientific virtue
  - a hypothesis that really is informative about how the world is
  - must be incompatible with other ways the world might have been
  - it must be subject to (the risk of) refutation or disconfirmation
Falsifiability demarcates science from pseudo-science
- falsifiability of claims is the hallmark of sciences, e.g., astronomy
- unfalsifiability of claims is the hallmark of pseudo-sciences, e.g., astrology
Conjectures & Refutations: How Science Proceeds
- Bacon: gradual accumulation of positive facts & generalizations
  - gather information
  - formulate generalizations on that
  - emphasis on confirmation of hypotheses
- Popper: daring conjectures and refutations
  - falsifiable hypotheses put advanced
  - search for contrary evidence: perform critical experiments
  - maintain the hypothesis so long as it's not refuted
    - the more predictive tests the hypothesis withstands
    - the more it's corroborated (not "confirmed," Popper insists
Impossibility of verification or scientific laws
- They say "you can't prove a negative"
- Neither can you prove a universal "all" claim
  - Universality of scientific laws (e.g., Newton's)
    1. When no force acts on an object (or when the forces acting on it cancel), it moves in a straight line at constant speed.
    2. The acceleration of an object equals the total force acting on it, divided by its (constant) mass.
    3. Whenever one body exerts force upon a second body, the second body exerts an equal and opposite force upon the first body.
    4. Two bodies attract each other with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
  - Proof would require complete enumeration of all objects, forces everywhere and always
    - Universal: All cats have whiskers. You'd have to examine every cat.
    - Negative: No cats have smooth tongues: You'd have to examine every cat.
  - Calls into question science's claim to give a true depiction of reality
    - scientific theories have the status: currently unfalsified
    - all scientific generalizations are eventually refuted (i.e., shown to be untrue)
    - so we shouldn't speak of currently accepted science as "true" or even "probably true"
Theory v. Observation
- Traditional Baconian view extols theory neutral observation
  - if you don't put your hypothesis out of mind
  - it's apt to color your observations: you'll see things with your heart not your eyes
- Popper maintains all observation is theory laden
  - observation is focus & directed perception
  - the hypothesis is what provides the focus and direction
    - tell us where to look
    - and what to look for
  - obvious in the case of experimentation
- Wolff: "this suggests that science may be, like religion, art, or politics, shaped and colored by the presuppositions of the scientific observer."

Thomas Kuhn's Theory of Scientific Revolutions

Kuhn a historian of science

past philosophy of science focused too much on the idealized products

scientific theories
& mainly the successful ones (the winners) at that

Kuhn focused on the actual processes

by which some theories win out
over others

Goes against the myth of straight-line, ever-upward, scientific progress

scientific development, historically, is an uneven process

long periods of steady, quiet, incremental development: normal science

gradual working out the implications
of shared assumptions & practices: accepted paradigms as Kuhn calls them
during which time the progressive view is approximately correct

punctuated by brief dramatic periods of change: scientific revolutions

drastic changes in basic assumptions and practices
paradigm shifts

Kuhn's Picture Developed

Paradigm: an accepted model of scientific practice and shared set of theoretical beliefs

defining what counts as a legitimate problem & an adequate solution
paradigms "define the legitimate methods problems and methods of research for the field"
Examples:

Physics

Aristotelian dynamics
Newtonian or Classical dynamics
Relativity Theory & Quantum Mechanics

Astronomy

Ptolemaic paradigm

what size and number & rates of epicycles
needed to explain & predict planetary motions

Copernican paradigm

what shapes are the orbits: Kepler
why don't the planets fly off: gravitation

Discussion:

according to Ptolemaic/Aristotelian view circular motion is the natural motion of heavenly bodies

aether -- the most perfect element --
naturally moves with the most perfect form of motion

according to the Copernican/Newtonian view

gravitational attraction of the sun
is a force acting to prevent the planets from flying off in a straight line
and causing them to move in the orbits we observe

Normal science: periods of near universal acceptance of a single paradigm

agreement on basic theory and practice
steady progress in solving the unsolved problems: developing the paradigm
normal scientific activity a sort of "puzzle solving"
hard problems, anomalies, which resist solution under the accepted terms

Scientific Revolutions: rapid wholesale paradigm shifts

anomalies grow numerous or prove intractable
producing a crisis

Ptolemaic astronomy: accumulating anomalies

retrograde motion

Ptolemaic ad hoc device of epicycles could predict motions correctly
couldn't explain why the mid-point of retrograde always occurs when the planet & sun are in direct opposition

perfection of the heavens: how to square with "imperfections"

craters on the moon & Mars observed by Galileo
moons & irregularities in appearance of Jupiter
sunspots

A new paradigm arises: Copernican paradigm

which can better cope with the anomalies

explanation of planetary motion provides natural explanation of why retrograde occurs at the point of opposition
puts the earth in the heavens and thus undercuts expectations of heavenly perfection

elliptical v. circular motion
re: those craters & sunspots: so there's sunspots -- it's as you'd expect

and becomes the basis for new normal science

Incommensurability of Paradigms: Kuhn's most controversial point

since the "rules of the game" -- of evidence, etc. -- are determined by the paradigms themselves
scientific revolution involves of a struggle between paradigms

not just about theory-neutral facts
but over what the rules of evidence should be
not even arguing about the same "facts"

the facts themselves are paradigm internal
observation is not theory neutral a la Bacon, but theory laden

straightforward picture of scientific development challenged

standard picture: science makes straightforward progress

successor theories explain the all the same facts as those they succeed

explain them better
plus additional facts besides

Kuhnian alternative

successor paradigms do not posit the same facts as those they succeed

facts are paradigm dependent
different paradigm, different facts
no sense in which the successor theory is objectively preferable

succeeded paradigms do not accept the same rules of evidence as their successors

the rules of evidence and even logic are paradigm dependent
so there's no sense in which the successor is rationally preferable

there is no logical progression of theories only a historical-sociological progression of paradigms

practitioners of the old paradigm don't get won over from seeing the truth of the new

wedded as they are to the standards and facts recognized by the old
they do not accept the rational or objective superiority of the new
Einstein's objection to quantum mechanics, for example

"God doesn't play dice with the universe," he said
appeal to random happenings: to chance is unexplanatory according to Einstein's scientific upbringing

this quantum shit just happens
that's no explanation of anything

eventually proponents of the old theory just die off or get drummed out of the field
& those brought up in the new paradigm take over the field

Science as a Social Institution

Science is a social institution: success of science depends or organized effort of all its practitioners

an the innocuous observation.
Example: if we're searching for a cure for AIDS

most research should go into what look like the most probable lines to search
but some effort should be expended looking at the long shots

Moral:

effective science not just a matter of disconnected & competing individual efforts
effective science is a matter of coordinated efforts of the whole community of inquirers

not only the discoverer deserves credit
they also served who explored blind alleys

The unsettling upshot alleged

Method of theory-neutral data collection proposed by Bacon impugned

by actual scientific examples and procedures

example of Newton
importance of the experimental method

experimentation is theory guided observation Received view

Received view as a compromise between Bacon & radical Kuhnianism

data collection is and should be theory guided
accepted theory and proposed hypotheses tell us where to look
but the observation itself is theory neutral not theory laden

what we see when we look there doesn't depend on our theory
the observation -- being of objective facts -- will be the same regardless of our theory

Post Kuhnian critique of objectivity of facts

a scientific fact = a fact accepted by the scientific community
the acceptance process is (at least in part) constitutive of the facts
therefore,

scientific facts are not (just) objectively given
they're (at least partly) socially constructed

Radical proposals: Discreditation of Science & rejection of Scientific Realism

science was supposed to represent way of knowing superior to others

e.g., religion & mythology
due to its objectivity & universality (including its cultural nonrelativity):

unlike subjective & culture-bound nature of religious "truth" & mythological "explanations"
scientific truth is supposed to be objective: true regardless of what anyone believes
and universal: true for one and all, alike

regardless of their theoretical persuasions
or cultural background

superiority of scientific knowledge is called into doubt if scientific facts are social constructs

they're not objective: their status as facts depends on the beliefs of the scientific community
they're not universal:

different cultures with different ways of knowing
construct different facts

scientifically constituted facts have no more claim to absolute reality than these others

science for all its inordinate prestige in our culture
is just one way of socially constructing facts
in this -- our Western -- culture

Voices Beyond Popper & Kuhn

Radical Kuhnians
- Demarcation Go Blow
  - pseudo-sciences are incommensurable paradigms too
  - so there's no rational basis for preferring science to voodoo, astrology, or myth
- Feyerabend: science just another "ideology"
  - ideological pressures "make us listen to the science to the exclusion of everything else"
  - "I want to defend society from all ideologies, science included."
Radical Kuhnianism as Neo-Sophistry (a la Thrasymachus)
- objectivity and rationality are myths
- the progress of scientific knowledge is a matter of
  - political allegiance
  - social convention
- the worrisome equation: why believe my claim
  - because it predicts the tides and the motions of the planets
  - because I'll shoot you if you don't (or reward you if you do) believe it
Proposed Rational & Universal Criteria of acceptance
- relevance: no occult causes
  - e.g., no action at a distance {mechanism}
    - OK: there goes astrology
    - Oh Oh: there goes gravity?
  - e.g., no supernatural agency: there goes Intelligent Design
- testability: empirically testable
  - some but not all observations comport with the theory
- compatibility with previously well-established theories
- predictive or explanatory power
- simplicity: simpler is better (other things being equal)
  - Occam's razor: "Don't multiply entities beyond necessity."
  - Famous example: the Copernican (sun-centered) vs the Ptolemaic (earth-centered) hypothesis
    - Ptolemaic hypothesis required more and more complicated "epicycles"
    - to predict the same observations that the Copernican hypothesis straightway predicted
The Underdetermination Issue
- For any body of evidence there will be many possible theories that fit the facts (and perhaps satisfy other proposed criteria of rational acceptance) equally well
- Hume's anticipation underlying his skeptical critique of causal reasoning
  - hypothesis H: that water will always suffocate a person who breathes it
  - hypothesis that water will always suffocate a person who breathes it until tomorrow 2100 (H2100)
  - in 2100 the evidence will decide between them
  - but there will still H2101, H2102, etc.
Lauden & Kitcher's Defense of Rationality
- Lauden
  - prefer theories which are internally consistent
  - prefer theories which correctly make some predictions which are surprising given our background assumptions
  - prefer theories which have been tested against a diverse range of phenomena
- Kitcher's success criterion: prefer theories that work
  - success doesn't simply mean that members of the group can use the theory to attain their goals
    - they might set their sights too low
    - rather "a science is successful when it provides the means to hypothetical ends"
  - in general, "the success that people collectively enjoy in predicting the behavior of objects ... and in adjusting our actions to them indicates that our most successful ways of representing the world are approximately correct."
Wolff's position: he's torn
- on the one hand he shares the radicals suspicion of scientific pretensions to be the arbiter of Truth with a capital 'T'
- on the other hand "it was not Feyerabends magicians, or priests, or astrologers, who effectively rid the world of smallpox," etc.

deduction
experiment
falsifiability
hypothesis
hypothetical deductive method
induction
instrumentalism
observation
scientific law
scientific realism
scientific theory
social constructivism
theory laden
theory neutral
underdetermination

LH's Mostly Modern Philosophical Glossary

Chapter 4
Key Concepts

Contemporary Application: Is Science Value Neutral

The received view

Scientists as citizens & individuals make value judgments about their work
Not so scientists as scientists: science qua science is value-neutral

Science tells us how things work and how the world is
Not how things ought to be: “it is up to the policy makers to determine the uses to which scientific discovery may be put.

Rudner’s Challenge

“the scientist qua scientist accepts or rejects hypotheses”
this may be seen to entail “that the scientist qua scientist makes value judgments”

Two extreme views

Strict neutrality: “in her role as scientist, she should leave her social values out of her work”
Strong social responsibility: “there are certain areas of scientific research that simply ought not to be pursued because of potentially disastrous results or the moral impermissibility of doing the experiments”

Einstein & Oppenheimer & the A-Bomb

Einstein, a pacifist, signed a letter to President Roosevelt urging the development of the A-Bomb

Einstein’s equation: E = mc²was the background theory applied
Expressed his regrets at the end of his life … “but there was justification – the danger that the Germans might make them

Oppenheimer

Headed the Manhattan Project the developed the A-Bomb
Later opposed the development of the H-Bomb and lost his security clearance

Wolpert v. Goldsmith

Goldsmith: “One thing that modern science cannot be is neutral – or, for it comes to the same thing, objective.”

Kuhn is right: science is subjective from the perceptual ground up
“today’s scientists believe unquestioningly in the same overall paradigm, it is only the details that are tested, while the paradigm, and hence the scientists’ fundamental beliefs are never tested ‘and could be guaranteed to emerge unscathed’ even if they were.”
All subscribe to the Baconian program: to give humanity power over nature

“he merely replaced the old ‘subjective’ values of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ with the value ‘of contributing or not contributing to man’s domination over or transformation of the natural world’”

reductionism vs holism

modern reductionistic science servers two purpose

“to provide the knowledge that will enable technologists to transform the planet”

witness “pesticides, antibiotics, genetically modified crops or atom bombs”

“to rationalize, and hence legitimise such endeavors by accentuating their appearent short term endeavors.

“a truly holistic science would be undesirable as it would reveal the intolerable biological, social, and ecological implications of such endeavors”

Wolpert: “reliable scientific knowledge is ethically neutral and ethics only enter when science is applied to make a product”

“The idea that science is not objective and does not tell us how the world works … bears no relation to reality”
“I do not understand what holistic science means.”

“It must be true that all the phenomena in the universe are controlled by the same fundamental physical laws.”
“But that is not the same as wanting to explain everything in terms of physics.”
“There are different levels of organization … and the reductionist approach is to try to account for the phenomena at one level in terms of the properties of the components of the next level down.”

“It is unnecessary to go down to further levels
but there must be nothing in one’s explanations that contradict laws that hold at lower levels”

Goldsmith:

“But scientists cannot live in a void: they must take into account the realities of the world in which they live, and in today’s world it could not me more predictable that work on the genome project must lead to such things as the development of GM foods.”

Your position is like the US gun lobby’s position: they supply the guns but “deny any responsibility for the use to which they are put.”

Against Darwinianism: “Many critics have noted that natural selection is little more than the biological version of Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ – a fundamental belief of modern economists that serves to rationalize and hence legitimizes today’s social and economic priorities.”

Wolpert

“Scientists who developed genetic techniques for manipulating genes are not responsible for GM foods – that rests with the large and rich industrial companies.”

This “cannot be compared to guns”
“there are very few objects in the world that cannot be put to evil use”
GM foods are a good thing, anyway: they will help feed the world

“In a democracy we must all, through our government, take responsibility for controlling the abuses and dangers”

Goldsmith

“[S]cientists like … yourself are little more than priests of the modern cult of scientific progress” and “you feel duty bound to discredit any heretics who dare suggest that this insidious process might not be entirely beneficial”
“natural selection is generally accepted not because there is ‘overwhelming evidence’ for it, but because it fits in so perfectly with our mechanistic and reductionistic world view in terms of which we see the natural world as random rather than orderly, and committed to perpetual change (progress) rather than overall stability.”

Wolpert

“if anything you are a bit cult-like with your holism and totally unsubstantiated rejection of evolutionary theory”
“Like you I care about the environment and it is only through a scientific understanding of nature that we will be able to protect it.

Pugwash
- Concern about privatization of research: "researchers are not so free in private firms as compared with public institutions, and therefore their sense of responsibility may diminish.
- Dilemma
  - "As part of cultural evolution science should be allowed to develop freely, with no restrictions put on it."
  - "But ... uninhibited research ... may lead to an even greater potential for total destruction ..."
Torch Being Passed to Younger Scientists
- Resurgence of weapons related research despite the end of the Cold War
  - low yeild nuclear weapons
  - bunker-busting warheads
- Mary Jane Lindquist
  - "I don't look at issues of design as involving weapons of mass destruction"
  - "I look as them as deterrents. I don't really look at it as if I'm designing something with the object of killing people. The whole point is that they don't get used."
- Alan Wan
  - "My job is to make or deterrent credible so that no one will challenge us."
  - "I'm very proud of what I do."

About Philosophy 9th ed., Chapter 4 Philosophy of Science

The Place of Science in the Modern World

Francis Bacon and the Foundations of the Scientific Method

The Relation Between Theory and Observation

Karl Popper and Falsifiability

Thomas Kuhn's Theory of Scientific Revolutions

Science as a Social Institution

Voices Beyond Popper & Kuhn

Contemporary Application: Is Science Value Neutral

About Philosophy 9^th ed., Chapter 4
Philosophy of Science