Unit 3. Anything goes?
Download as PPTX, PDF4 likes1,054 views
The document summarizes the perspectives of Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend, and Imre Lakatos on the philosophy of science. Thomas Kuhn argued that science progresses through paradigms and paradigm shifts, rather than through a uniform progression. Paul Feyerabend believed there is no rational scientific progress even within paradigms, and that creativity and social factors are more important. Imre Lakatos sought to balance rational scientific progress with Kuhn's ideas by proposing research programs that allow for development over time.
Unit 3. Anything goes?
- 1. Unit 3Revolutions and relativism
- 2. So far:Logical positivism and confirmationCritical rationalism (Popper) and falsificationToday: 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)
- 4. Thomas Kuhn
- 5. Popper was describing the way science ought to work (normative)Thomas Kuhn was interested in the way science actually works (descriptive)
- 6. Popper and the logical positivist made a rational reconstructionThey focus on the reasons not the causes for scientific behavior.
- 7. Take a game of chess The rules of the game are internal to the game
- 8. Your motives four playing a game of chess are however externalConceptual frameworksFacts do not really speak for themselvesFacts are part of a conceptual frameworkKuhn calls such a conceptual framework a paradigm
- 9. paradigms
- 11. The pre-paradigmatic periodThe 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.
- 13. Normal science as puzzle solvingNormal science begins when a scientist comes up with a new and interesting view, a model.
- 14. After a paradigm is established, researchers can agree on the problems and facts.AnomaliesIf an anomaly occurs it is not the problem of the paradigm but of the scientist. Ad hoc adjustmentsNo falsification: Scientist are dogmatic
- 16. CrisisIf to much anomalies occur there is a crisesConfusion returns, and the old paradigm starts to crumble.Two solutions:The issues are resolvedA new paradigm is found, revolution.
- 18. RevolutionNew (young) scientist come up with a fresh idea.A paradigmatic shift occurs (Gestalt-switch), a change of worldview.
- 20. AssignmentThink of three examples you consider paradigm shiftsThese examples could about science, society, or your own lifePresent 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 worldviewCopernicus and the heliocentric worldviewGalileo Galilei and proofAs an effect of the Copernican revolution man ceased to be the center of the universe
- 25. The inquisition forced Galileo to renounce his findings
- 27. Paul Feyerabend
- 28. The enemy of scienceFeyerabend thought Kuhn was killing creativity with normal scienceThere is no such thing as rational scientific progress, not even within a paradigm.
- 29. Back to Galileo
- 30. Against empirical evidenceChallenging observation rather than following it. Galileo not only changed his worldview, but also the way to measure itIf the earth moves why do things fall in a straight line?
- 31. Other observers tested Galileo’s telescope and did not see the sameHis telescopic observations differ from normal observations
- 32. Even worse, Galileo’s observations weren’t accuratethe 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 scienceFeyerabend compares modern science with the inquisitionThe inquisition only tried to defend the prevalent worldviewHe 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 sayWhat to do: go against the rules, whenever possible.
- 37. ImreLakatos
- 38. Lakatos considered Kuhn’s idea’s as destructiveHe wanted to save the rationality of scienceHe proposes: research programsHe wanted back to Poppers rationality of science
- 39. Research programsA 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 PopperFalsification forbids all ad hoc adjustmentLakatos calls this naïve falsificationHe suggest that the research programs should get the time to developRationality in the long run
- 41. Global Warming
- 42. Practical example: Global warmingIs 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