RI Science Lecture 2 (Problem of Demarcation) 2023

SCIENCELecture 2: The Problem of Demarcation I

Overview◦The Problem of Demarcation◦Verificationism◦Falsificationism

Problem of Demarcation◦Recall: ◦The unique and extraordinary success of Science since the Scientific Revolution (17thcentury) in providing us with useful knowledge to control and predict natural phenomena◦The desire of other fields of knowledge to attain a similar level of esteem (and influence?) by associating themselves with Science◦2 main questions:◦How to determine what is Science and what isn’t Science?◦Why does it even matter?◦3 possible categories:◦Science◦Pseudo-science◦Non-science (doesn’t try to pass itself off as science, e.g. Humanities)◦E.g. Astronomy vs Astrology vs Science Fiction novel (e.g. Dune)

Exercise: Science, Pseudoscience or Non-science?◦Acupuncture (the belief that by inserting needles into various parts of the body, you can restore normal energy balance to relieve pain and cure various disorders)◦Astronomy◦Botany (the study of plants)◦Creationism (the belief that the theory of evolution is false and that each species was uniquely created by God)◦History◦Homeopathy (the belief that an extremely small quantity of a substance that can cause certain symptoms in a healthy person can cure similar symptoms in an unhealthy person)◦Ethics◦Economics◦Literary Criticism◦Psychology◦Psychoanalysis (a set of theories and therapeutic techniques that deal with the unconscious mind and form a method of treatment for mental disorders by helping people to release repressed emotions and experiences –making the unconscious conscious)

Problem of Demarcation◦Not a straightforward question◦Possible criteria:◦1) Science as “the attempt to understand, explain and predict the world we live in” (B, 1) ◦but then, so does religion, astrology, fortune telling, psychoanalysis and history!◦2) Science as that which employs experimentation ◦but not all sciences do (e.g. astronomy and many social sciences)◦3 traditional answers: Verificationism, Falsificationismand Kuhnian Paradigmmatism

Verificationism◦Aka the Traditional View of Science where a scientist attempts to confirm a hypothesis by finding evidence to suggest that it is true based on induction◦Assumes the principle of the uniformity of nature, i.e. that the future will resemble the past◦Once there is a good amount of supporting evidence, the hypothesis is accepted as provisionally true◦Founders: the Vienna Circle, aka the Logical Positivists (LP) aka Logical Empiricists in the 1920s◦One of LP’s central tenets is Verificationism: A criterion of meaning where a proposition is onlymeaningfulif it can be definitively and conclusively determined to be either true or false◦LP held that all knowledge should be reduced to logical and scientific foundations◦This is because all meaningful propositions are either analytic a priori (hence logically verifiable; essentially math or logic) or synthetic a posteriori (hence empirically verifiable; essentially science). ◦In other words, they deny the possibility of synthetic a prioriknowledge◦In this way, LP distinguished science from metaphysics (and not pseudoscience per se) which they viewed to be empirically nonverifiableand thus meaningless◦Hence, under LP’s simple view of science, there was no focus on whether a theory would be incompatible with every possible experience as Popper’s Falsification did; all it focused on was whether the theory could be empirically verifiable.

Verificationism◦Distinguishes between Contexts of Discovery and Justification◦COD: the actual historical, psychological process by which a scientist arrives at a given theory (e.g. dreaming of a snake eating its tail) –can be subjective◦COJ: the means by which a scientist tries to justify his theory, like testing and experimentation –objective ◦Distinction between Theories and Observational Facts◦Theories –non-neutral, i.e. scientists can and do disagree about them◦Observational Facts –neutral, i.e. scientists can and do agree about them

Verificationism-Implications◦Science as rational◦Theory Choice is objectively settled by looking to the neutral observational facts, i.e. facts will determine theory choice◦The term “facts” already suggest the idea of neutrality –facts are that which are ‘out there’ waiting for us to discover. They are objective and not tainted by theory.◦The better theory is simply the one which the evidence supports◦Science progresses linearly and cumulatively due to rational theory choice ◦The old theory is replaced by the new, better theory◦We are getting ever closer to Objective Truth (e.g. Theory of Everything)◦Psychoanalysis would count as a science under Verificationismsince its predictions can be empirically verified.◦E.g. if a psychoanalytic theory postulated that a man would marry a woman that reminded him of his mum, then it could be verified insofar as one checks whether the man had indeed married someone who reminded him of his mum.

Verificationism-For◦Intuitive! Fits the traditional view of science as the cumulative search for truth via the verification of theories◦Also explains why we think that science is a rational (as opposed to irrational, not empirical) activity

Verificationism-Against◦The Problem of Induction means that Science as defined by the LP is open to uncertainty◦The Problem of Induction also means that general laws (like the laws of nature) become meaningless under Verificationismsince it would be impossible to verify that the law held for all instances◦More fundamentally, the Verification criterion itself proved to be unverifiable. ◦Under this doctrine, any meaningful proposition must be either analytic (i.e. logically verifiable) or (empirically) verifiable. ◦But this criterion is itself not analytic –for the proposition, “all statements that have meaning must be either analytic or verifiable”, it is not immediately clear that the subject, “statements that have meaning”, contains the predicate, “analytic or verifiable”, which means that it is not analytic. ◦But it is not verifiable also since it is not empirically possible to prove it. ◦So the Verificationistprinciple is itself unverifiable!