WEEK 5: LECTURE

Are theories correct or not?

Scientific Realism are generalized from Structural and Entity Realism.

Contra Structural Realism: 2 examples

1.Aristotelian Physics: Force>Restriction Then velocity is proportional to F/R
Force<Restriction velocity=0;
Newtonian Physics: a=F/m
2. Newtons law of Gravity and General Relativity, Field Equation
Contra Entity Realism:
1.Combustion in Phlogiston Theory and Contemporary Chemistry

2.Matter composition

However, Scientific Realism is a question with flaw. From ch2, Fallibilism.

Change question to: Are the theories close to the truth than theories before?

Human endeavors other than science, notion of progress is questionable:music, visual arts

For Acceptance and 2nd law, they are all true by definition, need another approach.
 Pessimistic induction Arg.

Take away message, science progress towards truth, as is Progress thesis

WEEK 6: LECTURE
Topic: What is the difference between science & non-science? What are the characteristics of a
scientific theory?

Examples of scientific vs non-scientific theories:

Scientific:
Accepted: General relativity, History, Genetics, Neurophysiology, Superstring
theory, Astrology
 Unaccepted: Newtonian Physics, Superstring theory
Non-scientific: Witchcraft, Alchemy, Homeopathy, Divination, Creationism

How do we really distinguish between two sets? An empirical theory is scientific if

DRAFT:
It is based on experience (extremely vague bc it allows for cherry-picking only
favorable date, even Astrology is non-sense but based on experience, needs
more!).
If it explains all the known facts of its domain (if we employ this, many scientific
theories would turn out unscientific, like Newtonian physics incorrect.)
If it explains, by and large, the known facts of its domain (necessary but not
sufficient: even unscientific theories manage to explain the known facts, like
Astrology can explain the behaviors of a cancer for ex).
FINAL: If it explains, by and large, the known facts of its domain AND if its testable
(falsifiable) at least in principle.
Falsifiable - being able to say in such-and-such circumstances, certain outcomes
are possible, while other outcomes are impossible. Should also exclude certain
options.
It doesnt need to have been tested, its just has to be testable.
Ex: Superstring (although the theory hasn't been confirmed, we still think its
scientific bc its testable in principle).
Now, this is just a historical hypothesis & could be correct or incorrect This is
just our contemporary demarcation criteria.
Aristotelian demarcation criteria: In empirical science, a theory is scientific if it attempts
to uncover the nature of a thing.

Many unscientific theories which were once considered scientific were exposed to not be using
our demarcation criteria. But if we dismiss the past science as not really scientific, we must be
prepared that our own science will be declared unscientific by future scientists.
Must concede that the criteria of demarcation are changeable.
There exists no universal and fixed criteria for demarcating scientific theories from
unscientific theories.

Method: 3 components
Method: a set of criteria for employment in theory evaluation (since employed methods
change...)
Demarcation criteria: determining whether a theory is scientific or not (... also
change).
Accepted criteria: determining whether a theory is acceptable or not.
Compatibility criteria: determining whether two theories are compatible or not.
If the criteria of demarcation between scientific and unscientific theories are changeable, is there
anything at all that sciences of diff periods share?

Laws of scientific change:

*** Any actual/potential violation of the laws of scientific change is unscientific. ***

The laws in depth:

Case 1: The Lost manuscript (violation of first law)
What if there exists a mosaic where some parts of it is preserved in a manuscript
& no one knows it by heart? And suppose there only exists one copy since no one
is allowed to copy it? What if this was stolen or destroyed? At least some part of
the mosaic would be lost forever
By the first law: theories remain in the mosaic unless theyre replaced by other
theories. This would violate first law (many theories would be rejected without
any replacement). This would be an unscientific step bc it violates first law.

Case 2: Lysenkoism (violation of second law)

Soft inheritance: physiological changes acquired over the life of an organism can
be transmitted to offspring.
By Lysenko supported by Stalins regime.
It didnt provide confirmed novel predictions at the end so NOT accepted.
Theory: Hard inheritance
Physiological changes acquired over the life of an organism cannot be
transmitted to offspring.
The accepted view on heredity at the time.
No matter how much you workout, the results wont be transmitted to
your offspring.
 Accepted bc many members of the scientific community were physically
eliminated.
Method: Hypothetico-deductive method
By the 2nd law: the method of the time was such that soft inheritance
hypothesis had to provide confirmed novel predictions in order to become
accepted.
We consider this case unscientific bc the theory was forced into the mosaic
without having met the requirements of the time. The case was a violation of the
second law.
Case 3: Homeopathy (the reliance on individual testimonials is violation of third law)
Homeopathy: a substance that causes a disease in healthy people can cure the
disease in sick people. Like cures like.
Homeopaths attempt to convince the community by referring to individual
testimonials of their patients.
Method:
First, they tried the double-blind trial method. So in order to be accepted,
homeopathic medicine must be tested in double-blind trials (as in both
healthy and sick parties have no idea what theyre taking [*fix here*] ).
But homeopaths try to convince us by means of patients testimonials??
For ex, someone would say I was an alcoholic and was able to detox
from alcohol and quit drinking using homeopathy. This is completely
different from the double-blind method For the homeopathic strategy to
work, the method of testimonials have to replace the double-blind trial
method in the mosaic.
Method of testimonials: a hypothesis about a drug's efficacy is accepted if
the drugs effect have been confirmed by the patient testimonials.
Theory:
By 3rd law, in order to become employed, the method of testimonials has
to follow deductively from our accepted theories but the method of
testimonials doesnt follow from our accepted theories. In fact, it fails to
take into account the possibility of placebo effect as well as other known
effects. Thus, if we were to employ this method, it would be a violation of
the third law.
The case of homeopathy is qualified as unscientific bc among other things, it
defies the third law.
Case 4: Astrology (if we squeeze this into mosaic, lead to violation of zeroth law)
Astrology (celestial influence): the planets and stars have significant influence on
human mentality & behavior (one of its key promises).
Astrologers still insist that configurations of celestial bodies somehow influence
terrestrial events.
 What would happen if astrology became accepted? It would introduce
incompatibility into the mosaic.
According to Quantum physics & general relativity: measured from the Earth,
gravitational, magnetic, and other effects of distant planets and stars are negligible
(ex: even our electronics have far more significant effect on the human body and
brain than distant planets and stars). The planets & stars cannot exert any
significant influence on human mentality & behavior
The astrological premise is incompatible with the theories of our current mosaic.
If astrology somehow became accepted, there would be incompatibilities in the
mosaic. The acceptance of astrology would be an unscientific move (it violates
the zeroth law).

In conclusion, any actual or potential violation of scientific change is usually qualified as

unscientific.

So what is the difference between science & non-science? This can be divided into 2 special
cases:
1) what are the characteristics of a scientific theory? The answer to this question depends on
the method employed at the time. Thus, there are no timeless criteria of demarcation of
scientific and unscientific theories. This question doesnt have a universal
(transhistorical) answer...
2) What are the characteristics of the process of scientific change? Only this problem can
have a transhistorical solution. A modification of the mosaic is scientific if its in accord
with the laws of scientific change.