Understanding the Philosophy of Science: From Hypotheses to Revolutions

1. Understanding Science and its limitations; • why should we care? • Defining and demarcating Science • Why should we be concerned with the philosophy of Science? • What differentiates good and bad hypothesis? • From question to hypothesis • Popper/Kuhn/Lakatos/Feirabend contributions to the demarcation of Science • Some practical and ethical considerations • Pete Jumars has an excellent web page at the University of Maine from where I took some ideas

2. BEDEVERE: Tell me. What do you do with witches? VILLAGER #2: Burn! BEDEVERE: And what do you burn apart from witches? VILLAGER #2: Wood! BEDEVERE: So, why do witches burn? [pause] VILLAGER #3: B--... 'cause they're made of... wood? BEDEVERE: Does wood sink in water? VILLAGER #1: No. No. BEDEVERE: What also floats in water? ARTHUR: A duck! CROWD: Oooh. BEDEVERE: Exactly. So, logically... VILLAGER #1: If... she... weighs... the same as a duck,... she's made of wood. BEDEVERE: And therefore? VILLAGER #2: A witch! The power of a deductive approach According to Monty Python

15. Another example: -Why is ecology considered a science while astrology is a pseudoscience ?

16. Are there a set of activities and characteristics common to all sciences? • Karl Popper suggested that all scientific theories should be falsifiable.  Theories are able to make predictions that can be tested against experience. • What is a good hypothesis? • 1) Excess empirical content  predict phenomena that have not been observed before. • 2) Verified excess empirical content. Many times we are faced with a set of predictions, only some of which are falsified. • 3) Connectedness to other knowledge. Hypothesis that fail this criterion are commonly called empirical, semi-empirical, formal, arbitrary, or simply “ad hoc”. • Hypothesis means an smaller idea imbedded within a larger one. •  confusion between a good statistical null hypothesis and a good ecological hypothesis.

17. Karl Popper efforts were aimed at differentiate science from pseudo science: • Theory of Relativity vs. psychoanalysis and and Marx’s theory oh history • However, his statements went further: • We cannot rely on induction to acquire knowledge; falsification allows us to rely solely on deductive processes. • Deductive inference: • - All Chileans like red wine (axiom or premise 1) • Alejandro is Chilean (axiom or premise 2) • Alejandro likes red wine (conclusion) • However, more often we are faced with inductive inferences: • The first five eggs in the box are rotten • All eggs in the box have the same stamped date • The sixth egg in the box will be rotten • When we talk about “experimental proof” we really mean “supporting evidence”

18. Karl Popper’ argument was this: • Although we cannot prove that a scientific theory is true, it is possible to prove that it is false. •  When we refute an hypothesis we are using deductive inference. • What is the weakness in Popper’s argument? • It does not tell us how theories are formed • Scientists are not interested in finding out how our universe doesn’t work. • Hume’s paradox • We can acquire new knowledge only through inductive processes. However, induction cannot be rationally justified. We need to invoke the “Uniformity of Nature”. • Max Plank: We are like archeologists trying to decipher hieroglyphs . • Feynman: We are trying to decipher the rules of chess not having seen the beginning of the game.

19. Kuhn’s contribution: “The nature of scientific revolutions” • Other important contribution to the Philosophy os Science during the 20th Century: • Thomas Kuhn: “The structure of Scientific Revolutions” • Differentiates between “normal” and “revolutionary” science • IrmeLakatos: The concept of Scientific Programme • We work with systems of hypotheses • We cannot discard a theory or paradigm before we are able to replace it. • Paul Feirabend(the Anarquist): • Against Method • How to protect Society from Science • Problem solving is a creative enterprise!! Furthermore, in its advance form, problem solving requires the creation of new problems.

20. Kuhn’s contribution: “The nature of scientific revolutions” • Platt, J. 1964. Strong Inference. Science, 146 • Within science, why are there some field that are rapidly moving while others are slow? • Application of the following steps to address a scientific question: • Devising alternative hypotheses; • Devising a critical experiment (or several of them), with alternative possible outcomes. Each of which will, as nearly as possible, exclude one or more of the hypotheses; • Carry out the experiment so as to get a clean result; • Recycling the procedure, making subhypothesesaorsequencial hypotheses to refine the posibilities that remain, and so on. • Is there one Scientific Method?

21. Some practical considerations: • The importance of constructive criticism in peer review • “The most effective criticism of a poor hypothesis constitutes the construction of a better one”. • From P. Jumars • What should we do: • When you have a good idea set it up as a set of hypotheses: • Draw a diagram • Write an explicit equation • Examine possible special cases • Simplify the problem and place it in a general context • Only constructive criticism works ultimately • Work toward a better hypothesis • Decide (or identify) what theory you are using and not trying to endanger. Work with hypotheses that are derived from this theory. • Remember that in order to have a good hypothesis (little prediction from a bigger idea) you first need a thesis (an overarching idea) • In our present funding climate, it is difficult to get exciting ideas and risky approaches funded. Most part of the time proposal with fairly secure outcomes will be funded leave enough room to do do some of the science that you want to do. • Use Occam’s razor, but not as a blinder

22. Some practical considerations: • What we should not do: • Develop multiple working hypotheses that cannot be falsified by data • Beware of single hypotheses that have a person’s name attached, specially if it is your own. • Maintain healthy skepticism of the data an hypotheses • Remember that any acceptance of an hypothesis is only tentative until a better one comes to replace it. • Avoid collecting data and then making a story about them (an ad hoc theory or hypothesis). Collection of data without a theory. • Work toward or from predictions. You should collect the data only after making the predictions. • Don’t confuse empirical predictions based on observed statistical regularities with predictions based on mechanistic understanding. The formers allow the development of hypotheses but cannot test them.

23. Some practical considerations: • Once you have done your research: • If the results haven’t been published, the research will need to be re-done. • Your recipe needs to be clear because your results need to be reproducible. • Be precise in your writings • Avoid jargon and abbreviations in the abstract and title. • Be clear in explaining the purpose, methods, results and conclusions. • Chose your target audience, then the journal, and write the paper accordingly. • If the paper has weak points, highlight them rather than hide them. • Who should be co-author vs. who should be acknowledge? • In writing proposals consider: • What are the current and exciting issues in our field? • Why should the topic you chose be included among them now? • Why should the work be done now? • Why should a particular agency fund it? • Why are you well poised to do the job? • How will you interact with other research groups? • Get the big idea out clearly, early and often. • Show that you can frame a set of testable hypotheses • Help the reviewer to do a reality check • Show respect… follow the Agency guidelines. • Take the reviews seriously and don’t take rejections too hard • Ask the program manager what are the key points to address in a revision and persevere.

24. Writing reviews: • Be constructive… Concentrate on improvements • Do a triage first: don’t spend time on details if there are major flaws • Pay close attention to reproducibility of results (clarity and completeness of methods) • How do the result support the discussion? • If the writing is poor, suggest an informal review by the editor before you do a formal review. • On the review of proposals: • Is it feasible? • Will the proposed work have an impact in our field and beyond it? • Is it timely? • Are we inclined to fund the proposal because of the data or the scientific value of the hypotheses? • If you cannot suggest improvements, how much should you criticize?

25. A few ethical considerations: • To your peers: • First of all acknowledge your sources and collaborators • Be honest, this is the basis of scientific endeavor. You are ultimately responsible for your work and your colleagues will build on the knowledge that you provide. As Karl Popper said: Science is a community effort. • Make certain that you are unbiased as a reviewer. It is OK to decline reviewing a manuscript or proposal. • To society: • Our research is mostly funded by tax dollars. Hence we should try to make our results as accessible as possible. (Against big words) • We need to educate the public in the meaning and value of science. Does religion conflicts with Science? • Should we avoid dealing with controversial issues? • Reluctance versus overstatement. • - Resistance and reticence of scientists to state new discoveries (R. Barber, 1965) • - On the other hand, some of us tend to overstate the importance of our results in supporting a knowledge status quo.