PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

LOGICAL POSITIVISM

Logical positivism was born in 20^th century in Austria in a gathering known as Vienna circle. The Vienna Circle is a gathering of a group of physicists, mathematicians and social scientists, who met weekly in Vienna under Moritz Schlick, a philosopher at the University of Vienna. The philosophical movement that came out of this circle was later referred to as Logical positivism, logical empiricism and scientific empiricism. The Logical positivist were greatly influenced by the work of Wittgenstein titled Tractatus.  They are also called the verificationists because of their influence of the verifiability principle. Logical positivism is empirical because it holds that all knowledge, except for the “analytic” truths of mathematics and logic, is derivable from experience. It also belongs to this school because of its influence by Einstein success in science. It is positivist because of its adoption of August Comte’s positivism and its rejection of metaphysics. It is scientific because of its belief that the methods of the sciences especially physics are the only way to true knowledge. Finally, it is logical because of its view that mathematical logic furnishes us with the tools with which the new version of empiricism will be built upon, one that will favour mathematics and disfavour metaphysics. Philosophers in this school: moritz Schlick, Rudolf Carnap, A.J Ayer, Otto Neurath, and Hans Reichenbach.

Verifiability principle

Verificationism or theory of verifiability is a theory that states that the meaning of a proposition lies in its mode of verification. One of the central tenets of logical positivism was the verifiability principle, which says that the meaning of a proposition lies in its mode of verification. It holds that a statement is meaningful only if it is either analytic or empirically verifiable. In other words to determine the truth or falsity of its meaning we must subject it to measurements. For them, Verificationism is the criterion for the demarcation of science from non-science. They hold that statements of religion, spirituality, metaphysics and ethics are literally meaningless without content that could be either true or false. They also believe in the unity of science - that science is reducible to physics. They have a rational image of science. For them, there is a set of rules for conducting science (referred to as norms of rationality) which acknowledges some principled and extra-historical justification. That is, the formation and judgment of decision and policies in the practice of science does not depend on convention or on any historical phenomenon. However, the verifiability principle proposed by the logical positivist is neither empirically verifiable nor analytic such as the statement of logic or mathematics. It self-refuting. This self-refutation of the verifiability principle led to its collapse.

SCIENTIFIC REALISM AND INSTRUMENTALISM

Philosophers of science raise problematic questions concerning the relationship between scientific theories and the world to which the theories are meant to apply.  Two views, known as scientific realism and scientific instrumentalism attempt to answer this question.

Scientific realism is the view that scientific theories can describe what the world is really like. Scientific realists believe that the aim of science is to describe what the world really look like. Realists hold that the world exists independently of us as knower and it exists the way it is, independently of our theoretical knowledge of it. For them, we cannot know the world but scientific theories can describe to us what the world really look like A true scientific theory is one that correctly describes the world and its mode of behaviour and the false scientific theory is one that incorrectly describes it and its mode of behaviour. For instance they believe that the kinetic theory of gas gives us knowledge that the gas is made up of molecules in random motion colliding with one another and with the walls of the containing vessel. From realist point of view, this theory gives us knowledge of what gases are really like.

Instrumentalism is the view that scientific theories are instruments which predict the world. Instrumentalists believe that scientific theories are instruments designed to relate one set of observable state of affairs with others. For instance, interpreting the kinetic theory they believe that the moving molecules are convenient fictions that enable the scientists to relate and make predictions about observable manifestation of the properties of gases. For them, scientific theories are not judged in terms of truth or falsity but in terms of its usefulness as instruments. They hold that scientific theories are nothing more than set of rule for connecting one set of observable phenomenon to another. They are only instruments used to interpret the world. They believe that even if there are things that exist beyond the realm of observation, it is not the business of science to establish it.

THOMAS KUHN

Thomas Kuhn in 1962 wrote a book Structure of Scientific Revolution. He views science as a non-cumulative progress which is against the view of falsificationist and inductivists. He believes that falsificationism and inductivism do not bear close resemblance on the historical evidence. Thus, he attempts to develop a scientific theory that will be in close touch with historical situation. His method of science proceeds from prescience to normal science and crises revolution and back to new normal science and new crises revolution. Kuhn notes that paradigm consists of general theoretical assumptions and laws and the techniques for their application which a scientific community adopts. He describes normal science as puzzle solving activity. In this stage, normal scientists articulate and develop paradigms in their attempt to account and accommodate the behaviour for relevant species in the real world as revealed through the results of experiments. 

            In carrying out this task, they will unavoidably encounter difficulty and apparent falsification of the paradigm will occur. When the difficulty becomes serious and tough to handle, a crisis will emerge. This crisis will be resolved with the emergence of a new paradigm which will attract many scientists. At this point, there will be division among members of the scientific community. The adherents of the old paradigm will question and kick against the new paradigm while the adherents of the new paradigm will describe those who don’t agree with the new paradigm as chasing shadows. The abandonment of the old paradigm and its replacement with new ones is described as scientific revolution. Thus, Thomas Kuhn describes scientific revolution as a non-cumulative developmental episode in which an older paradigm is replaced either in whole or in part by incompatible new ones. He notes that progress in science is achieved during the normal science.

            For Kuhn, what distinguishes science from non-science is the existence of a paradigm capable of supporting a normal science tradition. Most modern sociology lacks paradigm and thus does not qualify as science.

DOES SCIENCE NEED PHILOSOPHY

On the importance of philosophy to science, Feynman holds that philosophy of science is important to science as ornithology is to birds. On the other hand, Albert Einstein asserts that philosophy is important to science in the area of methodology. He holds that philosophy is important to working scientists when research pushes them to the boundary of science. Science is imaginative but to a point. When the foundational issues are at stake, there will be no set of rules or procedures and establish theories to carry out the research. Thus, philosophy will be employed.

             Also, Einstein notes that when it comes to methodology, philosophy plays important role in science. Working scientists when they encounter foundational issues, sometimes devise new methods of inquiry. A proper philosophical training will help them to do this because it is what philosophy is interested in doing. Philosophical training helps one to think rationally when there are no systematic methods to think rationally about a particular problem. With the aid of philosophy, working scientists will think out of the box and discover new methods of rationally enquiry. For all the results of modern science for Einstein, were philosophical puzzles many years ago. It is doubtful that there will be any innovation in science if we don’t solve philosophical puzzle on the ground the puzzles are not scientific.

            Desiderio Murcho holds that apart from the area of methodology, philosophy is important in science. A good training in philosophy will help postgraduate science students to fare better. In schools and universities students are taught only the established theories but are not exposed on how to access the opposing theories or discover what is unknown in science. Postgraduate science students spent their time learning what is known in their undergraduate period but as Postgraduate they encounter competing theories and are expected to come out with original scientific result which was previously unknown. At this point, philosophy will help them to achieve these results.

Furthermore, Philosophical problems are problems of reality and knowledge. Metaphysics and epistemology are the core branches of philosophy. The central problem of metaphysics includes problem of universal and problem of identity across time. Life scientists are interested in problem of identity. For instance, when amoeba divides into two, which of the two is the original amoeba. Even when scientists try to avoid these problems they creep into their work and stare them on the face. When this happens, scientists ought to seek the opinion of philosophers in order to solve the problem.

            Finally, scientific questions are questions about reality, knowledge, value or logic and there are no scientific methods to deal with them. For instance, on the question of value, scientists are being worried by moralists who try to tell them what they can do and what they cannot do with can regard to morality. On the other hand, life scientists like everybody are expected to behave ethically. The best way out of this is the cooperation between life scientists and philosophical ethicists. Scientists ought to know more about philosophy by consulting philosophers and reading their works, same applies to philosophers.