PHILOSOPHY OF

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

 Why philosophy of science?
Science is widely recognized as our most successful
tool to investigate the world.
However, we do not fully understand it yet!
Some open philosophical problems:
• Can one give a general definition of science?
• What is the scientific method? And does it
guarantee the success of science?
• What is the relation between empirical facts and
scientific theories?
• What does constitute the progress of science?
 Why philosophy of space?
Space plays a crucial role in our best physical
theories, as well as in many other scientific disciplines
However, we do not quite know what space really is!
Some open philosophical problems:
• How do we get to know space?
• Is space an absolute entity, a sort of « container »,
independent from the material bodies it contains?
• Or, is space a derived notion, which depends on the
mutual relations between material bodies?
• What geometry correctly describes space(-time)?
 Why philosophy of technology?
Technology is pervasive in contemporary society.
It is a product of science, which in different forms
have contributed to the development of human kind.
However, it poses very dramatic problems!
Some open philosophical problems:
• Can we control technological artefacts? And should
we actually do so from a moral point of view?
• What is the epistemological status of computer
simulations and artificial intelligence?
• What kind of information can we learn from non-
material models and experiments?
PHILOSOPHY & SCIENCE

Lecture 1

Science and Experience

September 14, 2023

 Science and facts
It is widely believed that the success of science
is explained and justified by experience.
That is, the truth of scientific statements is rooted
on well-confirmed empirical facts

Commonsense view about scientific knowledge:

«Science is derived from the facts »

Is that really true? Is that so simple?

 Objectivity of science
Preliminary thesis on the methodology of science:
one should first establish the facts and then build a
theory to fit them.

• If the observations are carried out in a careful

and unprejudiced way, then the collected
facts constitute an objective basis for science

• If the reasoning leading from such facts to

laws and theories is sound, then the resulting
knowledge is objective.
 The factual basis of science
Three claims about facts as the basis of science
(Chalmers p.4):

• (a) Facts are directly given to careful,

unprejudiced observers via the senses
• (b) Facts are prior to and independent of theory
• (c) Facts constitute a firm and reliable foundation
for scientific knowledge.

But are these claims true as they stand here?

 What are scientific facts?
Fact = claim about the world that can be directly
established by means of observations.

A scientific fact is a linguistic statement that

expresses a certain state of affairs in the world,
rather than that state of affairs itself.
Only in this way facts can be part of a theory
E.g. the statement « There are craters on the moon » is a scientific fact expressing
the state of affairs that there are indeed craters on the moon.
We are interested in observation statements , i.e.
statements describing observable states of affairs.
 Against claim (a)
Claim (a): Facts are directly given to careful,
unprejudiced observers via the senses
Observation by the senses is a subjective experience,
and can therefore be different in different observers.
E.g. even if an image forms in the retina of two observers in
the same way, they may well disagree on what they see.

Furthermore, in science one has to learn how to

become a competent observer,
E.g. using a microscope correctly requires practice
 Against claim (b)
Claim (b) Facts are prior to and independent of
theory
Recording observable facts does not reduce to mere
perception by a competent observer, but it requires
an appropriate theoretical scheme to apply:
That is the background (or prior) knowledge.

In fact, knowledge of a science is a prerequisite for

the formulation of the observation statements which
constitute its factual basis: in other words, one may
as well as say that « knowledge precedes facts »
 Learning how to observe
When walking in a garden, a botanist will be able to
collect many more observable facts about the flora
than me, because she has a knowledge of botany.
 Against claim (c)
Claim (c) Facts constitute a firm and reliable
foundation for scientific knowledge.
The subjectivity of perception undermines the
reliability of the factual basis of science,
in that different observers may disagree on what the
observable states of affairs are.

Also, judgements on the adequacy of observation

statements draw on the background knowledge.
This results in making such judgements fallible.
 Fallibility of observation: Example 1
The Greek philosopher Aristotle (384 – 322 BC)
was the greatest authority in ancient science.
He believed fire was one of the fundamental elements.
With such a presupposition, the statement «the fire
ascended » seems to be borned out by observation.

However, modern chemistry showed that this

is false:
fire is not a substance, but the rapid oxidation
of a material due to combustion.
 Fallibility of observation: Example 2
Before the Scientific Revolution (16th and17th
centuries), the earth was believed not to move. The
statement « Earth is stationary » actually appears to
be supported by direct observations.

But we now know that Earth spins on its axis and

orbits around the sun. In order to realize it,
it was necessary to anchor observations to the notion
of inertia, which is a theoretical concept.

The Scientific Revolution changed what were

considered to be the observable facts of science!
 What is the factual basis of science?
Observational statements are knowledge-dependent.

Yet, it does not mean that science does not have a

factual basis at all:

• observation is needed for testing,

i.e. to establish the truth of scientific statements.

• observational statements which are borne out

by direct experience constitute a significant factual
basis for scientific knowledge.
 Main message so far
Science has a factual basis in that scientific knowledge
is grounded on observation. But the commonsense
slogan «science is derived from the facts» is untenable:

• Observation is knowledge-dependent,
and thus relative to the background of each observer.
Problem: How can it be objective?

• Judgements on the truth of observation statements

rely on prior knowledge, hence they are fallible
Problem: How can such statements be confirmed?
Psychological account of observation
A naive view of observation emphasizes the
psychological, subjective nature of observation.
Accordingly, the establishment of observational facts is

• Passive : the observers direct the senses towards an

object, let the information flow in and record what is
there to be perceived
• Private : an individual observer simply attends to what is
presented to her by her subjective act of perception.
But of course this subjectivist account of observation
cannot be true in science!!!
 The nature of observation in science
The fallibility of the senses makes the perceptual
judgements of individuals unreliable.
• Gathering observational data is not a merely passive
recording of sensorial experiences:
e.g. use of sophisticated instruments.
• Observation is not private, else observers would have
no access to each other’s perceptions,
and hence the results could not be communicated
Observations in science need to be carried out in such
a way to eliminate, or at least reduce, subjectivity.
 Robert Hooke (1635-1703)

In 1665 Hooke published Micrographia , a book

containing the results of several observations he made
with a microscope, and coined the term « cells »
 Repeatability of observations
Early observations with the microscope led to
disagreement among the scientists on what they saw

Hooke improved the instrument and the methods of

observation by varying the conditions of illuminatio
The results he obtained could then be reproduced
by different well-trained observers.

The repeatability of observations puts the scientific

community in a position to communicate
observational statements as well as to test their truth.
 Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

In 1609 he constructed a telescope to observe the

heavens. His aim was to confirm the Copernican theory
 Ptolemaic system

Geocentric model: Earth is steady at the center of the

universe and the Sun and the planets move around it.
 Copernican system

Heliocentric model: the Sun is at the center of the

universe and Earth and the planets move around it
 How can the Earth move?
Problem for the Copernican theory:
If the Earth orbits around the sun, then it seems that
the moon should be left behind!
However, even according to the Ptolemaic system
Jupiter is supposed to move. So, if one could show
that Jupiter has moons, then by analogy one would
solve the problem about the motion of the Earth.

Jupiter’s moons are not visible to the naked eyes.

Thus, Galileo used a telescope with a scale attached
to it so as to make accurate measurements.
 Jupiter’s moons

Galileo recorded daily histories of the four “starlets”

he observed and showed that his data were consistent
with the assumption that such starlets are moons
orbiting around Jupiter with a constant period.
 Galileo’s argument
How could Galileo convince his opponents about the
veracity of his observations with the telescope?

• If his observations were illusions, why should they

appear only next to Jupiter and nowhere else?
• His measurement were consistent and repeatable.
So, independent observers could verify his data
• He could make further predictions on the positions
of the moons as well as their transits and eclipses.
 Objective and fallible facts
Galileo’s claims were based on observations which
survived practical, objective tests and proved to be
stronger than the other available alternatives.
An observational statement can be included in the
factual basis of science only if it is
• objective : it can be tested by straightforward
procedures which do not necessarily involve the
subjective judgements of the observer
• fallible : it may be undermined by new kinds of
tests made possible by advancements in science
and technology
 Relevant facts
The observational facts that constitute the empirical
basis of science must be relevant facts.

But how are such facts established?

• Which facts are relevant to a science depends on

the current state of development of that science

• Mere observation is not enough:

it is necessary to set up and perform experiments
 Example: Law of fall
Galileo’s Two New Sciences (1634)

All heavy bodies fall at a constant acceleration

(on the surface of Earth that is the gravitational
acceleration g = 9.8 m\s^2).
If one could create a vacuum, any two falling bodies
would travel the same distance in the same time.
 Example: Law of fall
Galileo’s Two New Sciences (1634)

The law cannot be established by mere observation!

In fact, the presence of air resistance prevents a leave
and a lead ball from falling in the same way.
 Need of experiments
Many different processes are at work in the world,
which interact with each other in complicated ways.

In order to acquire relevant facts, it is necessary to

intervene to isolate the process under investigation
from the effects of other processes.
This can only be done by setting up experiments.

Thus, the empirical basis of science is given by facts

which come from experimental results, and not just
from observable facts.
 When are experiments adequate?
Experiments are not straightforwardly given via the
senses. They require expertise and practical trials and
errors as well as sophisticated technologies.
Furthermore, they ought to be adequate, that is
• (1) the experimental set-up must be appropriate
• (2) disturbing factors must be carefully eliminated

Insufficient theoretical knowledge about (1) and (2)

would lead to inadequate experimental results.
Experiments are indeed theory-dependent.
 Fallibility of experimental results
Experimental results are fallible:

• Progress in technology may make them outmoded

• Advancement in understanding may lead one to
reject them as the instruments prove inadequate.
• Changes in theoretical knowledge may lead one to
regard them as irrelevant.

As a consequence, the experimental basis of science

is under constant transformation through history.
 Example: Electromagnetism

Electromagnetism is one of the fundamental

forces in nature. It arises from the mutual
interactions between electric and magnetic fields
 James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879)

Maxwell’s theory (1865) predicted the existence of

electromagnetic waves moving at the speed of light,
and asserted that light itself is such a wave.
 Experimental challenges
There were different theories about electromagnetic
phenomena competing Maxwell’s own theory.

That challenged experimentalists to test some

empirical consequences of such theories.

To test and confirm Maxwell’s theory it was necessary

• to generate and detect electromagnetic radiations.

• to demonstrate that light is indeed an electromagnetic
wave.
• to check the prediction that all electromagnetic waves
 Heinrich Hertz (1857-1894)

He was the first to produce radio waves in 1886 and

his results confirmed Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory
 Hertz’s experiment

Hertz’s apparatus generated standing waves, which

enabled him to measure their wavelengths,
and thereby to determine their velocity.
Nonetheless, it also seemed that such waves could
travel faster than light, thus contradicting Maxwell!
 On Hertz’s results
It was Maxwell’s theory that made Hertz’s
experimental results significant (theory-dependence).

Also, the observations he made using his apparatus

were accurate and his results were objective:
In fact, anybody who could repeat the same
experiments would obtain the same results.

But his experimental results were not fully adequate:

in his apparatus there were disturbance factors
causing interference, as it was proven later on by
means of more sophisticated experiment.
 The threat of circularity
Threat of circularity:
Scientific theories are appealed to in order to judge
the adequacy of experimental results,
but at the same time
those experimental results are taken as evidence for
confirmation of the scientific theories themselves

Problem: If that is true, experiments could not settle

any dispute between different competing theories!
 Can circularity be avoided?
There are two possible ways to avoid the circularity
arising from the theory-dependence of experiments

• Although the adequacy of an experiment needs to

be judged by some presupposed theory, the latter
may not be identical to the theory under test.
• Experimental results are determined by the world:
the experimental outcomes necessary to test a theory
depend just on the actual state of affairs of the world