ch1 science in a free society by jeu-jenq, yuann professor of philosophy, national taiwan university...

ch1

Science in a Free Society

by Jeu-Jenq, Yuann

Professor of Philosophy,

National Taiwan University

【本著作除另有註明外，採取創用 CC「姓名標示－非商業性－相同方式分享」台灣 3.0版授權釋出】

The Contents of the Course:The Contents of the Course:Science in a Free Society (pre-mid-term)Science in a Free Society (pre-mid-term)1. What is Science?1. What is Science?2. M. Nussbaum, “Socratic Self-examination” in 2. M. Nussbaum, “Socratic Self-examination” in Cultivating HumanityCultivating Humanity (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997), pp. 15-49.University Press, 1997), pp. 15-49.3. K. Popper, “The Aim of Science” in 3. K. Popper, “The Aim of Science” in Realism and Realism and the Aim of Sciencethe Aim of Science (London: Rutledge, 1985), pp. (London: Rutledge, 1985), pp. 131-158.131-158.4. P. Feyerabend, “Science in a Free Society” in 4. P. Feyerabend, “Science in a Free Society” in Science in a Free Society Science in a Free Society (London: NLB, 1978), pp. (London: NLB, 1978), pp. 71-122.71-122.

The Contents of the Course:The Contents of the Course:Science in the Free Society (after-mid-Science in the Free Society (after-mid-

term)term)

Paul Feyerabend, Paul Feyerabend, The Tyranny of ScienceThe Tyranny of Science, ed. , ed. By Eric Oberheim (unpublished manuscript By Eric Oberheim (unpublished manuscript taped from the series of lectures given by taped from the series of lectures given by Feyerabend on the eighth of May, 1992 at the Feyerabend on the eighth of May, 1992 at the University of Trento (Italy). University of Trento (Italy).

Topic one:Topic one:What is Science?What is Science?

2010.09.162010.09.16

5

Question: What is science? (1)Question: What is science? (1)

1. Historical preliminaries:1. Historical preliminaries:• Antiquity until 17Antiquity until 17thth century: scientific century: scientific

knowledge as certain knowledge, knowledge as certain knowledge, established by proof.established by proof.

• 1717thth century until second half of 19 century until second half of 19thth century: scientific knowledge as century: scientific knowledge as certain knowledge, established by certain knowledge, established by (the) scientific method(s)(the) scientific method(s)

6


1. Historical preliminaries:1. Historical preliminaries:• Second half of 19Second half of 19thth century until last third century until last third

of 20of 20thth century: scientific knowledge as century: scientific knowledge as fallible knowledge, established by (the) fallible knowledge, established by (the) scientific method(s)scientific method(s)

• Last third of 20Last third of 20thth century until now: century until now: dissolution of the persuasion of science dissolution of the persuasion of science as a strictly rule-bound enterprise as a strictly rule-bound enterprise induced by historical studies. Provokes induced by historical studies. Provokes the question: Is science special?the question: Is science special?

7


-400 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000

time

deductive proof

certainty

scientific method(s)

fallibility

8


2. Systematic preliminaries:2. Systematic preliminaries:• Concept of science with largest possible Concept of science with largest possible

disciplinary extension (“fields of disciplinary extension (“fields of research” – research” – WissenschaftWissenschaft))

• Focus: mainly, but not only, scientific Focus: mainly, but not only, scientific knowledgeknowledge

• Main contrast to everyday knowledge, Main contrast to everyday knowledge, not, e.g., to pseudo science or not, e.g., to pseudo science or metaphysics (Popper)metaphysics (Popper)

9


2. Systematic preliminaries:2. Systematic preliminaries:• No metaphysical presuppositions No metaphysical presuppositions

(essences, e.g.)(essences, e.g.)• Don’t expect sharp boundaries of Don’t expect sharp boundaries of

science: transition areas to scientific science: transition areas to scientific procedures for non-scientific purposes, procedures for non-scientific purposes, and in R&D (e.g., fusion reactor, and in R&D (e.g., fusion reactor, earthquake engineering, chocolate earthquake engineering, chocolate science)science)

10

The short answerThe short answer

Answer, to be explicated and defendedAnswer, to be explicated and defended::

Scientific knowledge differs from other kinds of Scientific knowledge differs from other kinds of knowledge, from everyday knowledge in particular, knowledge, from everyday knowledge in particular, primarily by being more systematicprimarily by being more systematic

Program for the rest of the talk:Program for the rest of the talk:• A little historyA little history• Qualifications of the answerQualifications of the answer• The concept of systematicityThe concept of systematicity• How to argue for the answerHow to argue for the answer

11

Comparison with the position of Comparison with the position of KantKant

Kant already appears to be a defender of Kant already appears to be a defender of systematicity:systematicity:

„„The systematic unity is what transforms The systematic unity is what transforms common knowledge into science“ (KrV common knowledge into science“ (KrV A832/B860)A832/B860)

Here, systematicity concerns only the Here, systematicity concerns only the structure and representation of knowledge structure and representation of knowledge and is understood in the restricted sense and is understood in the restricted sense of axiomatizationof axiomatization

12

The answer: History (1)The answer: History (1)

John Dewey, 1903:John Dewey, 1903:

““The familiar notion that science is a body The familiar notion that science is a body of systematized knowledge will serve to of systematized knowledge will serve to introduce consideration of the term introduce consideration of the term “scientific” as it is employed in this article. “scientific” as it is employed in this article. The phrase “body of systematized The phrase “body of systematized knowledge” may be taken in different knowledge” may be taken in different senses. senses.

13

The answer: History (1)The answer: History (1)

John Dewey, 1903:John Dewey, 1903:

It may designate a property which resides It may designate a property which resides inherently in arranged facts […]. Or, it may inherently in arranged facts […]. Or, it may mean the intellectual activities of mean the intellectual activities of observing, describing, comparing, observing, describing, comparing, inferring, experimenting, and testing, inferring, experimenting, and testing, which are necessary in obtaining facts and which are necessary in obtaining facts and in putting them into coherent form. The in putting them into coherent form. The term should include both of these term should include both of these meanings.”meanings.”

14

The short answer: History (2)The short answer: History (2)

Charles Morris, 1960, echoing Neurath about the Charles Morris, 1960, echoing Neurath about the plan for the plan for the Encyclopedia of Unified ScienceEncyclopedia of Unified Science::

““Section 2 was to deal with Section 2 was to deal with methodologicalmethodological problems involved in the special sciences and in problems involved in the special sciences and in the systematization of science […]. Section 3 the systematization of science […]. Section 3 was to concern itself with was to concern itself with actual state of actual state of systematizationsystematization within the special sciences and within the special sciences and the connections which obtained between them, the connections which obtained between them, with the hope that this might help toward further with the hope that this might help toward further systematization.”systematization.”

15


Carl Gustav Hempel (from 1958 onwards)Carl Gustav Hempel (from 1958 onwards)

1965: “All scientific explanation […] seeks to 1965: “All scientific explanation […] seeks to provide a systematic understanding of empirical provide a systematic understanding of empirical phenomena by showing that they fit into a nomic phenomena by showing that they fit into a nomic nexus”nexus”

1983: “Science is widely conceived as seeking to 1983: “Science is widely conceived as seeking to formulate an increasingly comprehensive, formulate an increasingly comprehensive, systematically organized, world view that is systematically organized, world view that is explanatory and predictive.” explanatory and predictive.”

16


Ernest Nagel, 1961:Ernest Nagel, 1961:

““It is the desire for explanations which are It is the desire for explanations which are at once systematic and controllable that at once systematic and controllable that generates science”.generates science”.

““A number of further differences between A number of further differences between common sense and scientific knowledge common sense and scientific knowledge are almost direct consequences of the are almost direct consequences of the systematic character of the latter”.systematic character of the latter”.

17

The answer: Qualifications (1)The answer: Qualifications (1)

The short answer: Scientific knowledge differs The short answer: Scientific knowledge differs from other kinds of knowledge, from everyday from other kinds of knowledge, from everyday knowledge in particular, primarily by being more knowledge in particular, primarily by being more systematicsystematic

• Terminology: I use “knowledge” loosely Terminology: I use “knowledge” loosely ≈ good ≈ good belief; “more systematic” (or “higher degree of belief; “more systematic” (or “higher degree of systematicity”) is not meant quantitativelysystematicity”) is not meant quantitatively

• Answer is Answer is descriptivedescriptive, not normative, not normative• Answer is Answer is comparativecomparative in character: other kinds in character: other kinds

of knowledge need not be entirely unsystematicof knowledge need not be entirely unsystematic

18


• ““being more systematic”: refers to knowledge about being more systematic”: refers to knowledge about the the samesame domain: domain:There is non-scientific knowledge that is immensely There is non-scientific knowledge that is immensely more systematic than some pieces of scientific more systematic than some pieces of scientific knowledgeknowledgeExample: ViCLAS: Violent Crime Linkage Analysis Example: ViCLAS: Violent Crime Linkage Analysis System (introduced by the Royal Canadian Mounted System (introduced by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, RCMP)Police, RCMP)Aim: Identification of serial violent crimes/criminals.Aim: Identification of serial violent crimes/criminals.Each potential serial crime is catalogued by 262 Each potential serial crime is catalogued by 262 questions; the database contains several hundred questions; the database contains several hundred thousand cases of many countriesthousand cases of many countries

19


• Answer is not immediately applicable to Answer is not immediately applicable to areas where science is the only game in areas where science is the only game in town, i.e. where no comparison with other town, i.e. where no comparison with other kinds of knowledge can be madekinds of knowledge can be made

20

What does systematicity mean? What does systematicity mean? (1)(1)

The concept of systematicity is very vague and The concept of systematicity is very vague and needs to be made 1. more precise and 2. more needs to be made 1. more precise and 2. more concreteconcrete

1. Contrasting concepts to “systematic”:1. Contrasting concepts to “systematic”:• purely random or accidentalpurely random or accidental• arbitraryarbitrary• unmethodicalunmethodical• unplannedunplanned• unorderedunorderedBeing systematic is to embody some kind of orderBeing systematic is to embody some kind of order

21


2. The concept of systematicity will be made more concrete in 2. The concept of systematicity will be made more concrete in nine dimensions, namely those in which scientific knowledge nine dimensions, namely those in which scientific knowledge is more systematic than other forms of knowledge:is more systematic than other forms of knowledge:

• DescriptionsDescriptions• ExplanationsExplanations• PredictionsPredictions• Defense of knowledge claimsDefense of knowledge claims• Critical DiscourseCritical Discourse• Epistemic connectednessEpistemic connectedness• Ideal of completenessIdeal of completeness• Knowledge generationKnowledge generation• Structure and representation of knowledgeStructure and representation of knowledge

22


Remarks:Remarks:• The more concrete concepts of systematicity, The more concrete concepts of systematicity,

corresponding to the nine dimensions, are different corresponding to the nine dimensions, are different from each other and exhibit only family resemblance from each other and exhibit only family resemblance among each otheramong each other

• But also within one single dimension, there are But also within one single dimension, there are different concepts of systematicity, co-varying with different concepts of systematicity, co-varying with different disciplines and even sub-disciplines, different disciplines and even sub-disciplines, exhibiting family resemblance onlyexhibiting family resemblance only

• Furthermore, concepts of systematicity vary historicallyFurthermore, concepts of systematicity vary historically• Thus, systematicity as a hallmark of science does not Thus, systematicity as a hallmark of science does not

claim a rigid, unique structure of the sciencesclaim a rigid, unique structure of the sciences

23

How to argue for the answer How to argue for the answer (1)(1)

By now, we know—to some degree—what the By now, we know—to some degree—what the short answer means short answer means

““to some degree”: the concept of systematicity to some degree”: the concept of systematicity must be more concrete in the different contexts, must be more concrete in the different contexts, i.e., in the nine dimensions and in the different i.e., in the nine dimensions and in the different disciplines and subdisciplinesdisciplines and subdisciplines

Now we have to show that Now we have to show that allall sciences are more sciences are more systematic than everyday knowledge in systematic than everyday knowledge in allall nine nine dimensionsdimensions

How many sciences are there?How many sciences are there?

24


According to Thomson Reuters, there areAccording to Thomson Reuters, there are170 categories in the sciences (Acoustics – 170 categories in the sciences (Acoustics –

Zoology)Zoology)54 categories in the social sciences (Anthropology 54 categories in the social sciences (Anthropology

– – Woman’s Studies)Woman’s Studies)15 categories in the formal sciences (Automation & 15 categories in the formal sciences (Automation &

Control Systems – Statistics & ProbabilityControl Systems – Statistics & Probability))26 categories in the humanities (Archeology – 26 categories in the humanities (Archeology –

Theater)Theater)Altogether: 265 disciplinesAltogether: 265 disciplines

25


However, we have to break up the individual However, we have to break up the individual disciplines into smaller units because disciplines into smaller units because disciplines are not homogeneous regarding disciplines are not homogeneous regarding their systematicitytheir systematicity

Example: Compare economic history and the Example: Compare economic history and the history of mentalitieshistory of mentalities

How many of these smaller units are there?How many of these smaller units are there?

26


One source counts 8,530 ‘fields’ (in One source counts 8,530 ‘fields’ (in 1987)1987)

We thus have something like 70,000 We thus have something like 70,000 theses for which to arguetheses for which to argue

This is the price of a descriptive thesis This is the price of a descriptive thesis about all the sciencesabout all the sciences

27


In order to argue for the higher degree of systematicity of In order to argue for the higher degree of systematicity of science in the nine dimensions, I will have to use science in the nine dimensions, I will have to use examplesexamples

I will have to show that scientific knowledge is more I will have to show that scientific knowledge is more systematic than other kinds of knowledge with respect to systematic than other kinds of knowledge with respect to descriptions, explanations, predictions, the defense of descriptions, explanations, predictions, the defense of knowledge claims, critical discourse, epistemic knowledge claims, critical discourse, epistemic connectedness, an ideal of completeness, knowledge connectedness, an ideal of completeness, knowledge generation, and the structure and representation of generation, and the structure and representation of knowledge.knowledge.

Furthermore, I will compare my position with other Furthermore, I will compare my position with other positionspositions

This will be the content of …This will be the content of …

28

Comparison with other positions: Comparison with other positions: FeyerabendFeyerabend

Apparently with Apparently with Against MethodAgainst Method and his slogan and his slogan „Anything goes“ an opponent of systematicity and „Anything goes“ an opponent of systematicity and methodicitymethodicity

Even more clearly:Even more clearly:„„Science has no common structure“ (1993)Science has no common structure“ (1993)„„Science [...] is a collage, not a system“ (1995)Science [...] is a collage, not a system“ (1995)Feyerabend opposes a common structure of science in Feyerabend opposes a common structure of science in

terms of necessary and sufficient conditions terms of necessary and sufficient conditions Here, however, the unity of science is constituted by a Here, however, the unity of science is constituted by a

net of family resemblance relations among different net of family resemblance relations among different concepts of systematicity and it is therefore very weakconcepts of systematicity and it is therefore very weak

29

SummarySummary

Albert Einstein (1936):Albert Einstein (1936):

The whole of science is The whole of science is nothing but a refinementnothing but a refinementof everyday thinking.of everyday thinking.

What does “refinement” mean in this What does “refinement” mean in this context?context?

We will see …We will see …

ch1 science in a free society by jeu-jenq, yuann professor of philosophy, national taiwan university...

Documents