Dialogue Education

Update 3

THIS
CD HAS BEEN PRODUCED FOR TEACHERS TO USE IN THE CLASSROOM. IT IS A CONDITION OF
THE USE OF THIS CD THAT IT BE USED ONLY BY THE PEOPLE FROM SCHOOLS THAT HAVE
PURCHASED THE CD ROM FROM DIALOGUE EDUCATION. (THIS DOES NOT PROHIBIT ITS USE ON A
SCHOOL’S INTRANET). 1
 Page 3 - Fling the Teacher- Intro to Philosophy of Science
 Page 4 - Video Presentation on Science Religion and the Cosmos
 Pages 5 to 6 - Definitions of terms
 Page 7 - Demarcation
 Page 8 – Why Study Philosophy of Science?
 Pages 9 –15 The central questions in science.
 Page 16 - Induction
 Page 17 – 19 Coherentism
 Page 20 - 21 Ockhams Razor –
 Pages 23 to 28 - Theory-dependence of observation
 Pages 31 The Scientific Method
 Pages 32 - Video Interview with John Polkinghorne
 Pages 33 to 34 - Bibliography

2
 Click on the image above for a game of “Fling the
Teacher”. Try playing the game with your students at
the start and the end of the unit. Make sure you have
started the slide show and are connected to the
internet.

3
 INDUCTION
 REALISTS
 ANTIREALISTS
 FOUNDATIONALISM
 COHERENTISM
 EMPIRICISM
 DEMARCATION
 PARADIGM
 OCKHAM’S RAZOR

4
 The philosophy of science is concerned with
the assumptions, foundations, and
implications of science.

5
 Philosophy of science
focuses on metaphysical,
epistemic and semantic
aspects of science.

6
 Twocentral questions
about science are (1)
what are the aims of
science and (2) how ought
one to interpret the
results of science?
7
 Philosophyin Science
is important in the
debate regarding
evolution and
intelligent design.
8
 REALISM uses a Correspondence
theory of truth. This maintains
that a statement is true if it
corresponds to the state of
affairs to which it refers.
Philosophy of science has
tended to rely on
Correspondence theory of truth
 Non Realists maintain that
statements are true because
they cohere or fit in with
other true statements within
a particular ‘form of life’.
 Themost powerful
statements in
science are those
with the widest
applicability.

11
It is not possible for
scientists to have tested
every incidence of an
action, and found a
reaction.

12
Induction

 One solution to this

13
 Explaining why
induction commonly
works has been
somewhat problematic.

14
 The problem of induction is one
of considerable debate and
importance in the philosophy of
science: is induction indeed
justified, and if so, how?

15
 Oneanswer has been to
conceive of a different
form of rational argument,
one that relies on
deduction.

16
Foundationalism
 Induction attempts to
justify scientific
statements by reference
to other specific
scientific statements.
17
 The
way in which
basic statements are
derived from
observation
complicates the
problem.
18
Coherence
Coherentism offers an
alternative by claiming that
statements can be justified
by their being a part of a
coherent system.
19
The essential elements of a
scientific method are:

•Problem

•Procedure

•Observation from data

•Conclusions

20
Ascientific method
depends on
objective
observation in
defining the subject
under investigation.
21
 Observation
involves
perception as well
as a cognitive
process.
22
 Empirical observation
is used to determine
the acceptability of
some hypothesis within
a theory.

23
 Thomas Kuhn denied that
it is ever possible to
isolate the hypothesis
being tested from the
influence of the theory in
which the observations are
grounded.
24
 By "paradigm" he meant,
essentially, a logically consistent
"portrait" of the world, one that
involves no logical
contradictions and that is
consistent with observations
that are made from the point of
view of this paradigm.
25
For Kuhn, the choice of
paradigm was sustained by,
but not ultimately determined
by, logical processes.

26
According to Kuhn, a
paradigm shift will occur when
a significant number of
observational anomalies in the
old paradigm have made the
new paradigm more useful.

27
That observation is
embedded in theory does
not mean that
observations are irrelevant
to science.

28
Ockham's razor
 The motto is most commonly cited
in the form "entities should not be
multiplied beyond necessity",
generally taken to suggest that
the simplest explanation tends to
be the correct one.

29
Paul Feyerabend argued
that no description of
scientific method could
possibly be broad enough to
encompass all the
approaches and methods
used by scientists.
30
Demarcation
 Karl Popper contended that
the central question in the
philosophy of science was
distinguishing science from
non-science.
31
 Click on the
image to the
right. You will
need to be
connected to
the internet to
view this
presentation.
 Enlarge to full
screen
32
 Agassi, J., (1975), Science in Flux, Reidel, Dordrecht.
 Agassi, J. and Jarvie, I. C. (1987), Rationality: The Critical View, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
 Augros, Robert M., Stanciu, George N., The New Story of Science: mind and the universe, Lake Bluff, Ill.: Regnery
Gateway, c1984. ISBN 0895268337
 Ben-Ari, M. (2005) Just a theory: exploring the nature of science, Prometheus Books, Amherst, N.Y.
 Bovens, L. and Hartmann, S. (2003), Bayesian Epistemology, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
 Boyd, R., Gasper, P., and Trout, J.D. (eds., 1991), The Philosophy of Science, Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, MA.
 Feyerabend, Paul K. 2005. Science, history of the philosophy of. Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford.
 Glazebrook, Trish (2000), Heidegger's Philosophy of Science, Fordham University Press.
 Godfrey-Smith, P. (2003) Theory and reality: an introduction to the philosophy of science, The University of Chicago
Press, Chicago and London
 Gutting, Gary (2004), Continental Philosophy of Science, Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, MA.
 Harris, Errol E. (1965), The Foundations of Metaphysics in Science , George Allen and Unwin, London, Reprinted by
Routledge, London (2002).
 Harris, Errol E. (1991), Cosmos and Anthropos, Humanities Press, New Jersey.
 Hawking, Stephen. (2001), The Universe in a Nutshell, Bantam Press. ISBN 0-553-80202-X
 Harré, R. (1972), The Philosophies of Science: An Introductory Survey, Oxford University Press, London, UK.
 Heelan, Patrick A. (1983), Space-Perception and the Philosophy of Science, University of California Press, Berkeley,
CA.
 Honderich, Ted (Ed.) (2005) The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press. New York, NY.
 Kearney, R. (1994), Routledge History of Philosophy, Routledge Press. See Vol. 8.
 Klemke, E., et al. (eds., 1998), Introductory Readings in The Philosophy of Science, Prometheus Books, Amherst, New
York, NY.
 Kneale, William, and Kneale, Martha (1962), The Development of Logic, Oxford University Press, London, UK.
 Kuipers, T.A.F. (2001), Structures in Science, An Advanced Textbook in Neo-Classical Philosophy of Science, Synthese
Library, Springer

33
 Ladyman, J. (2002), Understanding Philosophy of Science, Routledge, London, UK.
 Losee, J. (1998), A Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
 Newton-Smith, W.H. (ed., 2001), A Companion to the Philosophy of Science, Blackwell Publishers, Malden, MA.
 Newall Paul (2004) The Gallilean Library- http://www.galilean-library.org/manuscript.php?postid=43784
 Niiniluoto, I. (2002), Critical Scientific Realism, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
 Pap, A. (1962), An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, The Free Press, New York, NY.
 Papineau, D. (ed., 1997), The Philosophy of Science, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
 Papineau, David. 2005. Science, problems of the philosophy of. Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford.
 Piattelli-Palmarini, Massimo (ed., 1980), Language and Learning, The Debate between Jean Piaget and Noam
Chomsky, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
 Alexander Rosenberg, (2000), Philosophy of Science: A Contemporary Introduction, Routledge, London, UK.
 Runes, D.D. (ed.), Dictionary of Philosophy, Littlefield, Adams, and Company, Totowa, NJ, 1962.
 Salmon, M.H., et al. (1999), Introduction to the Philosophy of Science: A Text By Members of the Department of the
History and Philosophy of Science of the University of Pittsburgh, Hacket Publishing Company, Indianapolis, IN.
 Snyder, Paul (1977), Toward One Science: The Convergence of Traditions, St Martin's Press.
 van Fraassen, Bas C. (1980), The Scientific Image, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
 van Luik, James, The Energy of Ideas, Crow Hill Press, Cambridge, MA. 2000
 Walker, Benjamin, Caesar's Church: The Irrational in Science & Philosophy, Book Guild, Lewes, Sussex, 2001, ISBN 1-
85776-625-3
 Wikipedia-Philosophy of Science- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
 Ziman, John (2000). Real Science: what it is, and what it means. Cambridge, Uk: Cambridge University Press.

34