2. So far: Logical positivism and confirmation Critical rationalism (Popper) and falsification Today: sociology of science
3. In the sixties and seventies of the last century a new generation of philosophers of science emerged. Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996) Paul Feyerabend (1924-1994) ImreLakatos (1922-1974)
11. The pre-paradigmatic period The pre-paradigmatic period is the period before there is a paradigm. There is confusion among ‘scientists’ because they do not share a common paradigm. Scientist think differently about what facts are and what are important problems.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16. Crisis If to much anomalies occur there is a crises Confusion returns, and the old paradigm starts to crumble. Two solutions: The issues are resolved A new paradigm is found, revolution.
17.
18. Revolution New (young) scientist come up with a fresh idea. A paradigmatic shift occurs (Gestalt-switch), a change of worldview.
20. Assignment Think of three examples you consider paradigm shifts These examples could about science, society, or your own life Present it in front of the group
21. progress why does science progress? how does it progress? and what is the nature of its progress?
22. Kuhn doesn’t see a uniform ‘progression’ of science. If there is a uniform progression then only within a paradigm. He questions the rationality of science
24. Geocentrism, the Aristotelian worldview Copernicus and the heliocentric worldview Galileo Galilei and proof As an effect of the Copernican revolution man ceased to be the center of the universe
28. The enemy of science Feyerabend thought Kuhn was killing creativity with normal science There is no such thing as rational scientific progress, not even within a paradigm.
30. Against empirical evidence Challenging observation rather than following it. Galileo not only changed his worldview, but also the way to measure it If the earth moves why do things fall in a straight line?
31. Other observers tested Galileo’s telescope and did not see the same His telescopic observations differ from normal observations
32. Even worse, Galileo’s observations weren’t accurate the sketches he made of the moon do not really resemble the moon at all.
33. Galileo and Copernicus worked contra-inductive. If we followed empirical research, then we would still be stuck with the Aristotelian view.
34. Inquisition and modern science Feyerabend compares modern science with the inquisition The inquisition only tried to defend the prevalent worldview He compares this with creationism
35. ? Galileo succeeded despite, not thanks to rationality and induction. What really happened? Creativity and social factors, public relations so to say What to do: go against the rules, whenever possible.
38. Lakatos considered Kuhn’s idea’s as destructive He wanted to save the rationality of science He proposes: research programs He wanted back to Poppers rationality of science
39. Research programs A research program is like a paradigm. The difference is that their can be more than one at the same time. Every program has a hardcore and a protective belt
40. Adjusting Popper Falsification forbids all ad hoc adjustment Lakatos calls this naïve falsification He suggest that the research programs should get the time to develop Rationality in the long run
42. Practical example: Global warming Is science being driven by social motives? If so: isn’t that unscientific? Is this a bad thing? Is there room for alternatives? Should governments act upon the global warming hypothesis? Give your own opinion on this debate