science, knowledge, and truth

Science, knowledge, and truth

Scien3fic method and research ethics FI42N2 7,5pTeacher in seminar 1 & 2: Simon Allzén

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Prac%cal informa%on• The course consists of seven 3 hour seminars given by 3 teachers. • Main reading material:

Staffan Carlshamre, Philosophy of the Cultural Sciences, preprint.David B. Resnik, The Ethics of Science: an Introduc9on, Routledge.• ADendance is mandatory and compleEon of the course is part of the naEonal

requirements.• The examinaEon requirements are acEve parEcipaEon in the seminars and

compleEon of 3 wriDen assignments. The assignments will be graded from 0-6, where a score of 2 is the minimal requirement for passing the course. Anything below 2 will require revision.• Mail me your assignment for my part 2 weeks aMer the last seminar. They will be

examined by a plagiarism program.

Stockholm University, ScienEfic method and research ethics, Simon Allzén 2

About this course

• This course is not a replacement for the individual courses in methodology provided by your ins7tu7on. • The first part focuses on theory of science and knowledge, with

special interest in what unites different sciences. • The second part focuses on ethics and moral philosophy in rela7on to

science and scien7fic research. • The third part focuses on the special characteris7cs of the

humani7es.

Stockholm University, Scien7fic method and research ethics, Simon Allzén 3

What is science?

• We all think we know things: that Paris is the capital of France, that 2+2=4, that it’s wrong to hurt people for fun, that H2O is the chemical structure of water and so on. This is to have knowledge about geography, mathemaFcs, ethics, and science. But is there something that these instances of knowledge have in common? • QuesFons like these is the topic in the study of knowledge, a central

branch of philosophy called epistemology. In this course quesFons about the epistemology of science will be in focus, but before we can ask specific quesFons about scienFfic knowledge, we need to know more about epistemology in general.

Stockholm University, ScienFfic method and research ethics, Simon Allzén 4

What is science? What is knowledge?

• First dis(nc(on: the difference between knowing that and knowing how.

• Knowing that Paris is the capital of France

• Knowing how to ride a bike.

Stockholm University, Scien(fic method and research ethics, Simon Allzén 5



• Knowing that Paris is the capital of France Proposi'onal knowledge

• Knowing how to ride a bike. Ability knowledge


Proposi'onal knowledge

Simon knows that Paris is the capital of France


Subject

Rela9on between Subject and proposi9on

Proposi9on


Simon knows that Paris is the capital of France


Subject [Human]

Relation between Subject and proposition

[Different kinds of cognitive relations: doubts that,

hopes that, guesses that, etc.]

Proposi9on [True or false]


S knows that ___________P___________


Subject [Human] Proposition [True or false]

Three different ways to ask the same ques7on:• What makes it the case that S knows that P? • What makes this rela7on between S and P hold?• What are the necessary and sufficient condi1ons

for knowledge?

Necessary and sufficient condi0ons

S knows that ___________P___________


S believes that P

Knowledge = belief


S knows that ___________P___________


S believes that P P is true

Knowledge = true belief


S knows that ___________P___________


S believes that P P is true

Knowledge = true belief ?

Knowledge is not accidental

• Let’s say that I believe that my favorite football team will win the next match, and that they, in fact, do. Did I know that they would, or did I just happen to be right?

Stockholm University, ScienCfic method and research ethics, Simon Allzén 14



• IntuiAvely, I did not know!

Stockholm University, ScienAfic method and research ethics, Simon Allzén 15



• IntuiAvely, I did not know!

• Just because I believe something, and it happens to be true, does not mean that I have knowledge. We need to add another condiAon..

Stockholm University, ScienAfic method and research ethics, Simon Allzén 16


• In order to find out which condi/on to be added, it can be useful to compare my belief with another persons belief.

Stockholm University, Scien/fic method and research ethics, Simon Allzén 17


• In order to find out which condi/on to be added, it can be useful to compare my belief with another persons belief.• Me: believes that X will win because I like the team.• Match-fixer: believes that X will win because he payed off the players

on the other team, threatened the referee, and bribed the team officials.



• In order to find out which condi/on to be added, it can be useful to compare my belief with another persons belief.• Me: believes that X will win because I like the team.• Match-fixer: believes that X will win because he payed off the players

on the other team, threatened the referee, and bribed the team officials. • The difference between me and Match-fixer is that he has good

reasons for his belief, while I don’t.



S knows that ___________P___________


S believes that PS has good reason to believe P P is true

Knowledge = justified true belief!


[S knows that P] if and only if:

Stockholm University, Scien;fic method and research ethics, Simon Allzén 21

S believes that P [necessary]S is jus;fied in believing that P [necessary]P is true [necessary]

Sufficient condi;ons

A remark about truth

• Knowledge implies truth, but what does true mean in the classic analysis of knowledge?

Stockholm University, Scien=fic method and research ethics, Simon Allzén 22


• Knowledge implies truth, but what does true mean in the classic analysis of knowledge?• Truth in this analysis is objec<ve, in the sense that the truth of a

proposi<on or statement does not depend in any way on whether you think that it is true or false.

Stockholm University, Scien<fic method and research ethics, Simon Allzén 23


• Knowledge implies truth, but what does true mean in the classic analysis of knowledge?• Truth in this analysis is objective, in the sense that the truth of a

proposition or statement does not depend in any way on whether you think that it is true or false.• What makes the sentence “the earth is round” true or false is not

dependent on mental states but on the actual shape of the earth.

Stockholm University, ScienCfic method and research ethics, Simon Allzén 24


• Knowledge implies truth, but what does true mean in the classic analysis of knowledge?• Truth in this analysis is objec<ve, in the sense that the truth of a

proposi<on or statement does not depend in any way on whether you think that it is true or false.• What makes the sentence “the earth is round” true or false is not

dependent on mental states but on the actual shape of the earth.• There is a difference between the idea that there is objec<ve truth

and that we can access objec<ve truth in all cases.


Uncertainty and fallibilism

• Fallibilism is the denial of the objectivity or conclusiveness of justification. According to fallibilism, a high probability is enough to make us justified in our beliefs. This means that we can justifiably believe in false propositions.

Stockholm University, Scien?fic method and research ethics, Simon Allzén 26

Uncertainty and fallibilism

• Fallibilism is the denial of the objec0vity or conclusiveness of jus$fica$on. According to fallibilism, a high probability is enough to make us jus0fied in our beliefs. This means that we can jus0fiably believe in false proposi0ons. • What counts as good reasons?• (I) Empirical data / experience. A posteriori, induc0on. (Empiricism)• (II) Reasoning / a priori, deduc0on. (Ra0onalism)


Discuss: what is science?

• What are we separating science from?

• What makes science different from other kinds of human endeavors?

• Is science normative or descriptive?

Stockholm University, Scien=fic method and research ethics, Simon Allzén 28

What are we separa+ng science from?

• If we are empiricists, we would want to separate science from the a priori disciplines, for example mathema6cs and logic.


What are we separa+ng science from?

• If we are empiricists, we would want to separate science from the a priori disciplines, for example mathematics and logic.

• “Pseudo-sciences”: astrology, homeopathy, parapsychology etc.

Stockholm University, ScienBfic method and research ethics, Simon Allzén 30

What makes science different from other kinds of disciplines?

• Homeopathy vs. medicine

• Both disciplines are empirical, in the sense that their claims have testable consequences.





• Difference in attitude!





• Difference in a;tude!

Stockholm University, Scien@fic method and research ethics, Simon Allzén 33

Medicine: Theory predicts that X à experiments show that ¬X àrevision or abandonment of theoryHomeopathy:Theory predicts that X à experiments show that ¬X àkeep calm and carry on!

Is science normative or descriptive?

• Why are there different a-tudes?

Stockholm University, Scien:fic method and research ethics, Simon Allzén 34

Is science norma,ve or descrip,ve?


• Researchers in medicine trusts the experimental results, because they trust the procedures and methods that produces them, not in theory!


Is science normative or descriptive?



• The Austrian philosopher of science Karl Popper held that the principle difference between science and non-science was falsifica(on.

Stockholm University, ScienGfic method and research ethics, Simon Allzén 36




• The Austrian philosopher of science Karl Popper held that the principle difference between science and non-science was falsifica(on.

• Falsifica(on: a theory or hypothesis must be constructed in such a way that empirical evidence can refute, or falsify, it.

Stockholm University, ScienHfic method and research ethics, Simon Allzén 37

Is science normative or descriptive?Karl Popper’s norma&ve demarca/on of science:

• State your theory or hypothesis boldly, clearly and in such a way that it can be falsified.


Is science norma,ve or descrip,ve?Karl Popper’s norma&ve demarca/on of science:


• Make careful experiments to test your hypothesis / theory.





• Observe the data unbiasedly – does it contradict your hypothesis / theory?


Is science norma,ve or descrip,ve?Karl Popper’s norma&ve demarca/on of science:




• If yes, abandon/revise the hypothesis / theory, if no, make more experiments.






• If yes, abandon/revise the hypothesis / theory, if no, make more experiments.

• This is how science ought, or should, operate! It’s a norma-ve claim.


Case study: rela-vity


• Predic3on from general rela3vity:• Large masses will curve space3me so that light propaga3ng close to those

masses will have a curved path. Stars emiEng light that travels near the sunwill therefore appear to have a different posi3on in space.

Case study: relativity


• Predic3on from general rela3vity:• Large masses will curve space3me so that light propaga3ng close to those

masses will have a curved path. Stars emiDng light that travels near the sunwill therefore appear to have a different posi3on in space.

• Bri3sh Astronomer Arthur Eddington made experiments in Principeand Sobral where he, while during a solar eclipse, could photographstars close to the sun to observe if their posi3ons appeared to haveshiJed, an effect that general rela3vity predicted.


Stockholm University, Scientific method and research ethics, Simon Allzén 46

• Eddingtons experiment marked the end of Newton’s classicalmechanics which had lasted for over 200 years.

• This is a case of Popper’s falsificaHon. Einstein put forth a boldhypothesis with testable empirical consequences, and the experiment Eddington did could have easily proven him wrong.

• Is this an ideal case of how science ought to work?



• Einstein became famous overnight, but what did the data really say?

• The test stood between predic3ons derived from Newton’s theory, which stated an apparent star displacement of 0.8 seconds of arc(roughly 1/3600 of a degree), and predic3ons derived by Einsteins theory, which stated a displacement of 1.7 seconds of arc.



• Are these results enough to confirm Einstein’s predicAon?



• Some philosophers of science would argue that the scien3ficcommunity had already made up their minds about which theory wascorrect, and turned a blind eye towards the weakness of evidence in favour of Einstein. They already believed that Einstein was right!

• A sociological approach to explain why Einstein’s theory was taken to succeed Newton’s can be found in the works of Thomas Kuhn.



• Thomas Kuhn argues that science is conducted by groups of people, a scienAfic community, that adhere to certain implicit and explicit rules.• ScienAsts work in a paradigm, a kind of framework of invesAgaAon,

that contains a number of generally trusted theories and methods. In this paradigm, the scienAsts solve the puzzles generated by the theories that the community believes in. This is ”normal science”. • EvaluaAon of ones work is usually done by others in the group (peer-

review) which secures the paradigm.• Data that does not support the theories in the paradigm are treated

as anomalies.



• Normal science will some3mes have a crisis, where anomalies areaccumula3ng, and might eventually lead to a scien3fic revolu3on. • In the case of rela3vity, one might argue that the fact that Newton’s

theory failed to explain more and more experimental observa3ons, for example devia3ons of Mercury’s orbit, which could be explained ifone accepted general rela3vity, led to a scien3fic revolu3on. • The revolu3on was fuelled by sociological factors, such as an influx of

younger scien3sts which were less dogma3c, the fact that the chiefinves3gator Eddington was a close friend of Einsteins, etc.

Assignment for next .me

• Until next week I want you to think of an example of a hypothesisfrom your own discipline and how they are tested. • 1 Give an example of a question (perhaps from your own research)

that your discipline have the intention to answer.• 2 Formulate some possible answers to the question and reflect on

how you can determine which answer is the correct one.

Stockholm University, ScienDfic method and research ethics, Simon Allzén 52

• Next %me: Evidence and reasoning

• If you have any ques%ons, email me [email protected] come by my office in D768

Stockholm University, Scien%fic method and research ethics, Simon Allzén 53

mailto:[email protected]

science, knowledge, and truth

Documents