Science and societyScience and society

How do scientific theories (or philosophical How do scientific theories (or philosophical theories about science) impact commonsense theories about science) impact commonsense views, public policy, etc.?views, public policy, etc.?

And vice versa?And vice versa? CWU summer program: visit signing chimps: CWU summer program: visit signing chimps:

FriendsofWashoe.comFriendsofWashoe.com The case of GenieThe case of Genie Animal rights and our closest cousins (film)Animal rights and our closest cousins (film) Science at the Bar: determining what is science Science at the Bar: determining what is science

and what is not (demarcation again!), and using and what is not (demarcation again!), and using philosophy of science to do so...philosophy of science to do so...

Science and societyScience and society Ordinary chimps and Bonobos apparently:Ordinary chimps and Bonobos apparently:

Have self-awareness, learn from a rich social Have self-awareness, learn from a rich social (cultural?) environment, have complex social (cultural?) environment, have complex social emotions and arrangements, can learn from each emotions and arrangements, can learn from each other, can use tools, have a developed (often troop other, can use tools, have a developed (often troop specific) gesture-based means of communication, can specific) gesture-based means of communication, can learn 100’s of words of human natural language learn 100’s of words of human natural language vocabulary and follow commands, and can vocabulary and follow commands, and can communicate, using sign language and lexigrams, communicate, using sign language and lexigrams, their needs and intentions to humans.their needs and intentions to humans.

Should they be granted rights and/or recognized Should they be granted rights and/or recognized as “having rights” similar to those granted to or as “having rights” similar to those granted to or attributed to humans?attributed to humans?

Clearly, the view they that are “mindless”, driven Clearly, the view they that are “mindless”, driven solely by instinct, and in other ways “dumb solely by instinct, and in other ways “dumb brutes” is no longer tenable.brutes” is no longer tenable.

What to make of this?What to make of this? Peter Singer, Australian philosopher at the Peter Singer, Australian philosopher at the

University of Melbourne, and often University of Melbourne, and often controversial:controversial: Yes, they should be Yes, they should be grantedgranted rights that we rights that we grantgrant to to

other humansother humans For Singer, rights aren’t “god-given” or inherent and For Singer, rights aren’t “god-given” or inherent and

“real” independent of society; so-called “human “real” independent of society; so-called “human rights” are created and granted by societies.rights” are created and granted by societies.

Peter Singer:Peter Singer: A utilitarian, Singer accepts (socially-defined) rights as a A utilitarian, Singer accepts (socially-defined) rights as a

principle principle that follows from minimizing sufferingthat follows from minimizing suffering Animal LiberationAnimal Liberation, published in 1977, he argued against , published in 1977, he argued against

“speciesism”: discrimination based on the grounds that “speciesism”: discrimination based on the grounds that one belongs to a specific speciesone belongs to a specific species

He also argued that critics of Mary Wollstonecraft’s 18th He also argued that critics of Mary Wollstonecraft’s 18th century defense of women’s rights were correct in century defense of women’s rights were correct in equating granting rights to women with granting rights equating granting rights to women with granting rights to “brutes”to “brutes”

But then turned the argument on its head by arguing But then turned the argument on its head by arguing that “all beings capable of suffering are worthy of equal that “all beings capable of suffering are worthy of equal consideration” and that giving lesser consideration to consideration” and that giving lesser consideration to beings based on their having wings, fur, or female beings based on their having wings, fur, or female genitalia is no more justified than giving consideration genitalia is no more justified than giving consideration to skin color.to skin color.

Peter Singer:Peter Singer: Animals should be granted rights based on their Animals should be granted rights based on their

ability to feel pain (emotional, psychological, as well ability to feel pain (emotional, psychological, as well as physical) more than on the basis of their as physical) more than on the basis of their intellectual capacities.intellectual capacities.

After all, many severely retarded humans are no After all, many severely retarded humans are no more intelligent than some animals, yet we grant more intelligent than some animals, yet we grant them rights.them rights.

Moreover, it is clear that nonhuman primates can Moreover, it is clear that nonhuman primates can be highly intelligent and at least as intelligent as be highly intelligent and at least as intelligent as human children. As we grant the latter rights, why human children. As we grant the latter rights, why not intelligent animals?not intelligent animals?

And should intelligence be the sole criterion?And should intelligence be the sole criterion?

Science at the barScience at the bar

Larry Laudan v. Michael RuseLarry Laudan v. Michael Ruse Laudan:Laudan:

McLean vs. Arkansas was a “hollow McLean vs. Arkansas was a “hollow victory”victory”

Aka “Ruse’s ‘ruse’”Aka “Ruse’s ‘ruse’”

How the philosophy of science had a How the philosophy of science had a role in the caserole in the case

Science at the barScience at the bar

Judge Overton (and Ruse Judge Overton (and Ruse et alet al)) Creation Science is not science because it Creation Science is not science because it

does not contain “the essential features of does not contain “the essential features of science”science” It does not appeal to natural lawIt does not appeal to natural law Its claims are not testable or falsifiableIts claims are not testable or falsifiable Its proponents and claims are dogmatic rather than Its proponents and claims are dogmatic rather than

tentavietentavie Laudan’s alternative: CS Laudan’s alternative: CS isis testable and testable and manymany of of

its claims are patently false. its claims are patently false.

Science at the barScience at the bar Laudan: A far more serious problem is that the way Laudan: A far more serious problem is that the way

science was portrayed in the case is a false stereotypescience was portrayed in the case is a false stereotype Many scientific claims also cannot be tested in Many scientific claims also cannot be tested in

isolation and the logic of falsification is severely isolation and the logic of falsification is severely limited by that (Hempel and Duhem)limited by that (Hempel and Duhem)

Many scientific claims are not viewed by scientists of Many scientific claims are not viewed by scientists of the day as open to negotiation; there is a degree of the day as open to negotiation; there is a degree of dogmatism about core commitments among dogmatism about core commitments among scientists (Kuhn and Duhem)scientists (Kuhn and Duhem)

We don’t insist that in order for something to have We don’t insist that in order for something to have happened or to exist we must know what laws happened or to exist we must know what laws explain it (for example, we know evolution occurred explain it (for example, we know evolution occurred and continues to but there are no laws in and continues to but there are no laws in evolutionary theory) (van Fraassen’s account of evolutionary theory) (van Fraassen’s account of explanation)explanation)

Science at the barScience at the bar

Laudan: A far more serious problem is that Laudan: A far more serious problem is that the way science was portrayed in the case the way science was portrayed in the case is a false stereotypeis a false stereotype Add to all these problems, the fact that (scientific, Add to all these problems, the fact that (scientific,

all) observations are theory laden.all) observations are theory laden. This compromises, to some extent (a matter of This compromises, to some extent (a matter of

controversy to what extent), the impact of controversy to what extent), the impact of sensory experiences and/or experimental results sensory experiences and/or experimental results that are supposed to confirm or falsify a given that are supposed to confirm or falsify a given hypothesishypothesis

Science at the barScience at the bar In what respects was the portrait of science “a In what respects was the portrait of science “a

false stereotype”?false stereotype”? Not all sciences have laws in the sense presumed Not all sciences have laws in the sense presumed

herehere It is not clear that there really is any definition, or It is not clear that there really is any definition, or

single criterion, or set of criteria, that succeed in single criterion, or set of criteria, that succeed in defining science and demarcating it from other defining science and demarcating it from other endeavorsendeavors

In short, the “pro-science” defenders are In short, the “pro-science” defenders are defending a philosophy of science which is every defending a philosophy of science which is every bit as outmoded as the “science” of creationismbit as outmoded as the “science” of creationism

Pro Judice : RusePro Judice : Ruse To say that science appeals to law is not asserting that we

know all the laws. Does this answer the critique that not all sciences

include laws? The bottom line of all the various criteria offered:

Science does not break with law… it does not appeal to miracles.If in terms of a singularity, what about “The Big

Bang”? Not miraculous, but for some theories, singular

Laudan’s response is insufficient because the Constitution does not prohibit the teaching of weak or bad science. It prohibits the teaching of religion – which CS/ID is.

Wrap up…Wrap up…

Have your views about science changed in any Have your views about science changed in any way because of readings, films, or discussions?way because of readings, films, or discussions? If so, how? If not, why not?If so, how? If not, why not?

If you were designing the course, is there any If you were designing the course, is there any part of it (topics, readings, films) that you wouldpart of it (topics, readings, films) that you would Spend less time on?Spend less time on? Spend more time on?Spend more time on?

What wasWhat was Your most favorite topic?Your most favorite topic? Your least favorite topic?Your least favorite topic? And why?And why?