1.

Francis Bacon recommends induction, rather than “dialectic,”

as the “proper way to investigate the truth and guard against the
“illusions which block men’s minds.”

Bacon

2 ways of investigation the truth:

1. dialectic- hasty generalization

- leaps from sense and particulars to most general axioms and then
intermediate axioms
- ether dahil umiikot
- mind loves to leap into generalities so it can rest

2. induction
- elicit axioms from sense and particulars
- gradual and unbroken build-up
- patient character and more time

* introduce men to actual particulars and their sense orders

* abstain from notions and get used to actual things - see things as
they are

4 IDOLS
- Idols-idolatry- given more importance to something that
is not necessarily true
- illusions and false notions that block men’s minds
- take over their minds

1) Idols of the TRIBE

- found in the the human race or human nature itself
- humans are limited to what they can perceive
- sense: dictate what humans can know
- human senses are not the measure of things

“Uneven mirror”
- human perception is finite and fallible
- be humble and honest -admit this
 - not a perfect reflection
- realise that the truth does not reside in your perception
- the truth is outside your mind
- human understanding distorts the “real rays” of
reality”

2. Idols of the CAVE

- illusions of the individual man
- each man has a cave that distorts the light of nature
- unique and particular nature of each man or because of his
upbringing
- instead of what makes you the same (TRIBE), this is how you differ
as individuals

* YOUR CONTEXT defines the truth

- “ This is reality of me, as a Filipino”
- prejudices

* different in influences
“ I am this, I am that, you won’t understand that”

*Men and women look at the world differently

- way a woman is embodied - menstruation and child
bearing

* Eastern vs Western
- socially constructed characteristics
- can’t help but think in the context of the time that you were
born into
- rightness of slavery depends on the time that you were born into

*Herac: we are in our private worlds, not in a common world

3. Idols of the MARKETPLACE

- arise from men’s association with each other
- from human exchange and community
- through talk
- poor and unskilful words - to suit understanding of common people

*“pass the message”

- you are not even sure if your message or original message contains
the truth

* translation of texts for example ( not in readings )

- different context to another
- you can translate it ‘somehow’ but not fully (ex. pasma)

4. Idols of the THEATRE

- openly introduced and accepted on the base of fairytale theories -
mistaken rules of proof
- basis of fairytale theories and mistaken rules of proof
- no possibility of argument because these are mistaken rules
- ideas that authorities pass down to us

SOLUTION

*Novum Organum
- new induction method / method of discovery
- not jumping into conclusion
- like Plato

David Hume problematizes induction however, and posits that

though “matters of fact” ultimately rest on experience as their
only foundation, he still cannot account for the logic of inductive
inference.

Divides Human knowledge into two parts

- relations of ideas and matters of fact

1. Relation of Ideas
- certain
- does not rely on experience/ anything that exists in the universe
- a priori
- discoverable by mere operations of thought
- there was never a circle triangle
- mathematics
-- does not matter who or where you are
 2. Matter of Fact
- facts are observable
-truth of your claim is never certain
- founded on the relation of causes and effects
- burning finger
- SIMILAR causes, similar effects

- not necessary that causal relation in the future resemble causal

relations in the past
- for Hume, negation of the claim does not lead to a
contradiction
- contradictions are possible
- sun rises east but possible that it won’t
- the contrary is possible
- why should we expect if it will happen in the future if possible
na hindi

Problem of Cause and Effect

- from simpler statements, we derive the more general
- “ cause it’s true now, it’s true in the future”
- only temporary truths
- works in the 10th time, but not necessarily in the 11th

* ALL sci knowledge revolves around experience

* in math there is certitude in science there is not

PHILOSOPHER
H: I myself I do not know why we place our trust on these relations of
ideas
- what we know from experience is not from logical reasoning
- why do we expect to have the same effects all the time?

Hume: POSSIBILITY

Karl Popper also questions whether inductive inferences

are ever justified.
POPPER: PROBABILITY

Popper

Science -> Induction- singular statements (from results of observation) to

universal statements

* Problem of Ind: how to establish the truth of statements which are based
on experience

* Scientific Law: Should have “predictive powers” because they are

supposedly universal
Why do you derive a universal fact from a set of experiences?

“Probability”
- not truths, but just highly probable results
- Science does not really arrive at truth but probability
- no absolute conclusion
- tentative

“ all social sciences can “claim” how they world works”

- they are just probable inferences

“reliable” and “probable”

- What is probable is somewhere between the upper and lower limits
of truth and falsity
- posit what truth and falsity are and the statement that tries to
posit that is necessarily inductive as well.

* if you say 40 said yes, impossible for 30 others to say no?

* no. Improbable, but not impossible

DEDUCTIVE METHOD
- check a hypothesis for internal logical inconsistencies then you
subject it to empirical testing
- valid (for the moment) as long as it has not been falsified
- for the time being, it passed the test
2. Karl Popper thinks that the “criterion of the scientific status of a
theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.” This is how he
is able to assess Einstein’s theory of relativity as being genuinely
scientific, as opposed to the pseudosciences of Marx’s theory of
history, Freud’s psychoanalysis, and Adler’s individual psychology.

Science: Conjectures and Refutations

* There are types of thinking that are scientific not scientific and pseudo
science.

* demarcation criteria- separates science from pseudo-

sci - he isn’t searching for a criterion for the truth of theories
* S and PS both try to explain the natural world
- that science often errs and that pseudoscience sometimes stumbles
upon the truth

* What the difference? Their methods in arriving to the truth

Marx’s theory of history

- interpretation history

- material condition in any point in time that will determine society

- struggle/tension between 2 classes

- the ones who have vs the ones who don’t
- capitalists vs proletariat

- resources: material conditions. that dominate systems of

thought in a society

- Capitalism: shaping and determining thought

- everything that goes in though are already directed and
pre-determined by capitalist thought

*Ideological superstructures and material substructures (under -

lower half of house)
- capitalists (under) move everything above

Freud’s

- Who you are and who you came to be is something that you’re not aware
of

Matters of Suspicion
- you think you know, but you don’t
- you don’t know who you are

Mass of drives and instincts

- already pre-determined by this part of yourself that is
unconscious

Tip of the iceberg

- the bigger part of your unconsciousness shapes your everyday
waking life, dictates everything you do
- your rational self is just a small part of who you are
- bigger part is much more than just your conscious self

ex. Biting nails has a meaning

Adler
- Personality theories and types
- growth and development of children
- when unique beliefs are formed (childhood)
- Inferiority complex - efforts to compensate for their self-perceived
inferiority to others

Einstein
- gravitational theory
- Theory of E predicted: even light will be affected by the
gravitational pull of the objects; pull will be greater the more massive the
object is
- total eclipse in 1919
- during an eclipse you can take the photograph the stars
- apparent position of the stars will change (of the stars beyond
the sun)

These 3 other theories don’t make any risky predictions

- “Suddenly everything makes sense”

* Verification of your “pet theory

* psychological theory of looking for similar tendencies

Science- REVOLUTIONARY
- not looking for confirmations but potential disconfirmation
- Einstein’s theory: genuinely scientific
- gave a potential confirmation or falsification
- risky predictions —> claim something very particular
- risk: so definite that it can be supported or refuted
- The more theory forbids, the more scientific it is

Pseudo
- other 3 don’t allow for falsificatio
- no risky predictions

- You can easily invent or twist anything that you can clam to be
supports to your claim
- Marx somehow made an interpretation
classless society
- fall of capitalism and victory of proletariat
- History: collapse of USSR and other countries who
were communist - They will interpret in a different way
- remodification

Demarcation (act of setting boundaries) : falsification

Falsifiability or refutability of a statement

- scientific theory is constructed in a way that it can be falsified
- Theories not falsifiable are not scientific
- astrology is purposely vague to escape possibilities of being
falsified
-astrology is not scientific
- what makes it scientific is the fact that it opens itself up to
refutation

- which proves the statement in question to be false - “show to be

false”
- ex. All swans are white but possible to falsify with the
observance of one

A good scientific theory is restrictive (Einstein) and makes risky

predictions. Once the theory makes mistakes, it isn’t revised ad hoc
(after these mistakes are made to prevent being falsified).

No science can prove a theory once and for all

- continuous testing of theories or hypothesis to show that it
survived or resisted refutation
- because so far, trial to refute are unsuccessful

- Scientific Laws: not a once and for all description of what

happens in the natural world
- shows only theory has survived lots of trials of refutations
as of now
- Disproving it does not make it not scientific - it is the very
design of the theory that makes it open for falsification

What can science prove? How does it work?

- probable statements

Success of Science
- highly effective because we have statements that withstand all
statements that try to falsify them (so far)
- attempts to falsify theories one after the other
- statements about the world that have so far resisted all previous
attempts to falsify them
- may not forever resist
- not “universal” ( can never be changed )
- open-mindedness of science

Very Mechanism of Science

 - same exact test can either support or destroy the hypothesis

3. Thomas Kuhn posits that any normal science has both a

central theory and a puzzle-solving tradition, which
differentiate it from any other craft. Imre Lakatos claims that
any genuine scientific theory is composed of a hard core, a
protective belt of auxiliary hypotheses, and a heuristic or
problem-solving machinery. A pseudoscience is a
degenerating research programme, instead of a progressive
one.
*Demarcation criterion
- puzzle-solving criterion: normal

*K: critiqued Popper’s Einstein—> use to describe whole of science

- P is wrong- falsification does not happen in normal science- only in
revolutionary
- only happens one in a blue moon - does not happen all the time
- what really happen is a mopping up

K: einstein vs neutonian(gravity force that pulls two masses)

- E is seeking to redefined theory that has already been set

* extraordinary research: revolutionary science

- extraordinary research - overthrow of an accepted theory with a
better one - only during revolutions

Defines Normal science as ‘puzzle-solving’

- main purpose: like someone doing a crossword puzzle or a
chess problem or a jigsaw
- puzzle-solver expects to have a reasonable chance of
solving the puzzle
- doing so will depend mainly on his own ability
- the puzzle itself and its methods of solution will have a
high degree of familiarity
- puzzle-solver: not entering completely uncharted
territory
 - puzzles and their solutions are familiar and relatively
straightforward
- normal science can expect to accumulate a growing stock
of puzzle-solutions

- following preset already defined for you by your field

Normal Science operates under a paradigm that is the basis or set the
rules/standards/criteria in solving a puzzle
-If puzzle is not solved, the assumption is that the error is in the
scientist, not the theory itself
- Mindset of the scientists
- work now is checked if it’s acceptable to the standards of
the scientific world
- What radical thinking are you doing now? nothing

o Normal Science
- They do away with discourses. They only have discourse if
there’s a crisis
-What they’re after for is the puzzle solving
- Puzzle Solving > Critical Discourses
- falsification is not present in normal
science

Revolutionary Science
- a game changer
- changes or creates a new science
- rules are changed

- an overthrow happens
- stage which normal science undergoes when it cannot account for
anomalies

duck -rabbit
- you cannot see both together
- world did not change, just the way that you see it
- but you can never be both at the same time
Not a science, but a Craft
- astrologer : would say it i san immensely complex task
- planets positions/ stars are always changing
- he can always re-examine or re-interpret failure
- too many difficulties beyond atrologer’s knowledge
- no puzzles
- too may variables
- no clear rules
- no clear solutions

Unlike Normal Science

- work under set methodologies, standards, questions to judge whether
something is right or wrong
- something
- not really clear cut rules, but clear enough enough to judge
rightness/wrongness

Imre Lakatos claims that any genuine scientific theory is

composed of a hard core, a protective belt of auxiliary
hypotheses, and a heuristic or problem-solving machinery. A
pseudoscience is a degenerating research programme, instead
of a progressive one.
* Popper’s theory ignores that scientists don’t easily abandon their pet
theories
- science is not just trial and errors (both Popper)

* Develops the concept of a scientific research programmes

- characterised by a 'hard core' and a 'protective belt' of assumptions.
- The hard core: inner most claims, the core assumptions upon
which all work within the programme is based
- outer layer: protective belt of set of assumptions or hypotheses
- subject to negotiation and amendment in the light of work
carried out in the programme
- or as a result of discoveries made elsewhere that conflict
with the operating principles of the programme.
- “heuristic” problems solving machinery that digests anomalies
For L, Neutonian physics, etc. are actually research programmes
- they cling on to their basic beliefs
- even your “genuine” scientists will defend their claims tenaciously
- theory of evolution of darwin will be defended

Marxisms, Freud, Einstein, all research programmes

Demarcation criteria: for a genuine science

- “scientific”= progressive, but pseudo science is degenerative
- ability to make stunning predictions

* problem with Freud, Adler, Marx, cannot account for possibilities before
it happens
- they just try to make sense of what already happened
- does not mean senselessness or meaninglessness, but it is
just not scientific

For L: there is PROGRESS

= the old became discarded because it was degenerative and the
new one is progressive
- Degeneration happens because it is lagging behind
- a phenomena happens and your science cannot explain it /
cannot anymore accommodate it

4. Larry Laudan criticizes Judge Overton’s employment of “five necessary

conditions for genuine science,” but Michael Ruse comes to Overton’s
defense.

Creationism: God created everything as they are right now

- many would read the Bible in literal light/ understanding of the
account of creation in genesis
- (especially in the Souther states)

* Issue starts: US canno teach religion “persuasively”

Arkansa’s Balanced Treatment Act a law seeking to require the teaching of

Creation Science in classrooms
- advocated by its supporters as providing equal treatment of creation
science as the Theory of Evolution in the science classrooms
 - Judge Overton struck down the Act in 1982, 5 necessary conditions
for genuine science

5 criteria:

Guided by natural law

- Science is about unbroken, natural regularity
- does not admit miracles
- creation-science invokes happenings and causes outside of law
- "sudden creation of the universe, energy and life from nothing,"
- not "naturalistic” or "subject to empirical law” - no laws
where involved
- super natural

b. Explanatory with reference to natural law (Explanation and Prediction)

-neither explanation nor prediction is possible where no physical law
exists.
- creationists can give no explanation, and make no predictions.

c. Testability

d. Tentativeness
- Science must be open to change, however confident one may feel at
present
- Bible cannot be revised

e. Falsifiable

LAUDAN:

1. Guided by natural law

2. explanatory by reference to natural law

3. testable against the empirical world

4. conclusions are tentative

- hundreds of years ago to today, their views did change
-allowed level of species change
they do make adjustments
- even scientists are thick skinned - not so open to refuting their
claims

5. falsifiable
- L: they make testable assertions
- age of the earth
- shape of the earth was caused by Noah’s flood
- they are testable
- failed those tests
- disprove them and shut them up

*Flood is unscientific until we find the laws- absurd

- Darwin established laws of natural selection 50 years before laws of
heredity were laid out
— unscientific

- leaves too many loopholes for creationists to exploit

* testability, revisability, falsifiablity- weak requirements

“ creationist: ok i will abandon my clams after you find the
intermediary specie between ape and man”

Face them directly

- existing evidence provide stronger for evolutionary theory than for
creationism

RUSE

Correct that creationism fails as a science

* creation science- not genuine science

L: Let’s disprove them

R: US Consti does not bar teaching of weak science, but RELIGION

- acknowledging them as science will be allowing them to teach in
schools

TACTIC: show it is not science at all

Testability (there is a clear cut science and non-science)

 - creationism: appeals to the supernatural
- bread and wine turn into the body and blood of christ
- miracle not pertinent to natural law

*Divine intervention in creation - no natural laws involved - supernatura;

Tentativeness

- scientists sometimes do hang on to their views

- with new empirical evidence, they do change their minds

Special Creation: processes not operating in the natural universe

- appeal to divine revelation (limit)

Nothing tentative: based on unchanging revelation

*C: not only non-scientific but religious in naturee

Falsifiable
- domain exists solely in sacred texts
- unlike physics- material world is accessible to all

Evolution - “kind”
- nothing from humans to thousands of other species
- no openness expected of scientists

5. Thomas Kuhn stresses the role of a paradigm in a scientific

discipline’s development from “immature science” to “normal
science” to “extraordinary/revolutionary science” (through
anomaly and crisis) and back to “normal science” once again.

Demarcation: paradigm

· Normal science is governed by a paradigm

· Immature Science
 - Science wasn’t an organized body for it wasn’t established as
an enterprise yet
- theories regarding concepts are explained by different schools
of thought basing its claim from different doctrines.
- Aristotelean and Platonic theory

- Proto Science -> Before consensus

* Paradigm- the generally accepted perspective of a particular

discipline at a given time.
- the generally accepted perspective of a particular discipline at a
given time
- every paradigm in each era have values
- sets solutions, standards for judging, date gathering, analysis

**Normal Science (A subscription to a current paradigm)

- “puzzle solving”
- you solve more and more puzzles - more and more knowledge
- “ storehouse/stockhouse of knowledge”
- does not aim an novelties
- no conclusion is technically surprising

- Anomalies
- are irregularities that the paradigm could not account for
immediately (inconsistency between nature and paradigm)
- don’t arise because you are looking for them

It’s either that anomalies:

1. Could have been explained by a previous solution from the
paradigm
2. Could not be explained by the paradigm currently
3. The paradigm is not enough to address the inconsistencies

- Crisis
-If the paradigm is faced with a lot of anomalies that it could not
account for, then the paradigm is in a state of crisis
- alchemy to them (elixir of life, elixirs that can cure any disease)

- Extraordinary/Revolutionary Science
- presents the Scientific Community with solutions that the
current paradigm could not explain or account for
- old normal science gets discarded
- changes in world view (everything changes)
- not just set of rules- “religious conversion”
- “invisible,” subtle change has happened before you
realize it
- You completely do away with other puzzles

- Back to normal science

- Revolutionary science becomes the “new normal” by being the
common practice to which Scientists would prove its theories
-All paradigms die when its supporters die

- uncommensurabieity
“ a whole new world”
- all perspectives changed during paradigm shifts across
revolutions
- if you are a new science, you won’t even be looking at the same
thing or world anymore

- completely new language

- new meaning of words
- force in newton vs. einstein
- planet of ancient greeks vs modern scientists

- No progress across revolutions

- only within normal science)
- so science does not lead us closer to the truth
* and the whole process continues on and on

- communication
- there is a communication breakdown
- translation is possible
- we can understand each other because we share the same
history
- but there are some things lost in translation
— I’m not from that time anymore— but cause we’re human,
west have a shared history

- exemplars
 - you are drilled into specific way of doing problems
- given a proposed/ preferred way of solving problems in a
particular science
- mechanism of solving problems already come automatic

- successful
- perfectly suited for the environment or current period it is in
- suited the needs of a particular time
- technology today is perfectly suited for needs
- not better or higher needs than people before (in that sense)

* “assumptions of what ‘better’ means”

- you need other standards
- no meta-paradigm

6. Thomas Kuhn answers his critics who accuse him of “mob

psychology” by explaining that theory choice is dictated by both
shared, “objective” criteria, as well as by idiosyncratic, “subjective”
factors. Kuhn summarizes his views in terms of invariance,
subjectivity, and partial communication.

Theory of Choice

Critics called it mob psychology, sci. community is just a mob

- whatever group says is what is
- no objective reason

K: there are objective characteristics of a good theory (not exhaustive)

1) accuracy
- theory should agree with results

2) consistency
- no scientific discipline right now goes against other disciplines
- modern them and bio can talk to each other more or less
- that other science will theoretically understand the other
- working under copley inter-locking sciences
- consistency
 3) broad scope
- cell theory: all living things are composed of cells

Aris- gravity and levity

- this principle applies to all things that are airy and
watery in the world

4) simplicity
- any scientist will give a simplification of confusing theories
- botany gives unity, simplifies complexity of physical
phenomena
- no sci would say, the more confusing the better

Ptolemy: tried to give a unity to the phenomena of heavenly

bodies
= all was made of ether
- looked for a way to simplify

5) fruitfulness
- no sci. is a “closed system”
- no further research
- closed off/done

6) Social Utility
- people can benefit from this

Imprecise

- given same 5 criteria, there still may be different conclusions

ex. some are more conservative

Subjective beings: scientists might have different subjective (individual

characteristics) and objective factors
- scientists are still people
- you can never understand anything without bias and prejudice
- more fundamental prejudice, not just prejudice that you can set
aside like racism
- language (can’t fully translate)
- not only tool but brings out world views
 Algorithm
- reason why people choose one conc. over another is because
they judge and unlike machines. they don’t process using algorithms
- the world we come from gives us culture, history, values

Maxims
- 2 conflicts that conflict with each other
- “look before you leap” “YOLO”
- judgement

Values
- compassion vs. self-reliance
- argue about relative importances to each other
- the criteria function not as rules or unlike how programs
automatically work but as values
- we may value the same thing but we may value them different
- engineers may value this one over the other criteria
- Think of these criteria as values and not as rules

Summary:

1. value invariance
- in a sense objective
- all scientists anywhere, anytime, share in these values
- what changes is the application

2. Subjectivity p.115
- judgement (discussable) vs taste

Theory of choice
- not baseless matters of taste (I liked the book)
- these can be discussed

3. Partial Communication
- under judgement
- different theories can still communicate to each other
- but usage of words/ meanings change
- stars/ planets