RI Science Lecture 4 (Instrumentalism vs Realism, Scienticism, Science and other disciplines) 2023

SCIENCEInstrumentalism vs Realism, Scienticism, Science and other disciplines

Problem of Demarcation revisited –why bother?◦Why do we bother?◦The privileging of Science over any and every other body of knowledge◦When there are rival candidates for a knowledge claim, which do we believe?◦Simple! Just ask which is the scientific theory and which isn’t.◦But is this necessarily the right move?◦Consider how we have many different theories today that claim to be scientific when they are not.◦E.g.: healthcare claims like eating kale, drinking coconut oil, the whole ‘eating clean’ movement (read the Guardian’s piece https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/aug/11/why-we-fell-for-clean-eating)◦Also, is the assumption that that which is scientific is always epistemically superior to that which is not scientificcorrect?◦Is science over-reaching in some areas such as ethics because it cannot provide us with such knowledge?

Scientism◦Essentially, the worshippingof science, an over-reverential attitude towards science, thinking that science is the best or even the only valid form of intellectual endeavour◦To say that one is being unscientific is not merely an observation but to pass judgment, specifically a negative one –irrational, unjustified, foolish, perhaps even worthy of contempt◦The opposite holds for being scientific –rigorous, precise, justified, to be believed◦But should we hold such an attitude?◦Is Science really to be privileged over other disciplines? Think Math, Social Sciences, Humanities, Ethics, Aesthetics◦Can Science even inform us on such matters?

Science & other disciplines◦How applicable is the Scientific Method to other areas of exploration like Ethics, Aesthetics and the Humanities?◦Science: an empirical method of study into the workings of the (natural) world via the scientific method◦Insofar as a discipline is quantifiable and/or allows for experimentation, it seems possible to apply the SM to it◦E.g. Economics –quantifiable variables like price, years, GDP/capita, import levels etc◦E.g. Psychology –experiments are possible (e.g. Milgram experiment)◦E.g. Aesthetics –that which is beautiful is that which the majority of people like or perhaps that which conforms to the Golden Ratio◦But not everything that is of the social and/or mental world is quantifiable and/or allows for experimentation◦E.g. How to quantify thoughts? How to separate one from another?◦Human beings have free will and are not inanimate/non-sentient variables who have no choice but to obey laws of nature like carbon atoms –so psych experiments might reveal to us how the majorityof people might act in a given situation but not for any particular individual; no uniform behaviour

Science & Ethics ◦Science: the study of what is as opposed to what should be◦The former –positive statements like ‘there is a law of gravity’ ◦The latter –normative statements like ‘thou shalt not kill’◦Hence, no matter how sophisticated the experiment or the measuring device, the SM would be unable to tell us how to act ethically◦E.g. Science cannot tell us how to resolve the Trolley Problem; at best, it can only inform us of the suffering involved etc. To then decide based on these consequences that we should, say, kill the one in order to save the five is to appeal to the ethical principle that we should act in such a way as to maximise utility and minimise suffering.◦Hume: science merely gives us the “is” but ethics is about the “ought”◦No amount of “is” can give us an “ought”!◦P1: Killing one to save five would maximise utility and minimise suffering (Science can give us this)◦P2: We should always act so as to maximise utility and minimise suffering (Science cannot give us this)◦C: We should kill one to save five (P1-2)

Science & the Humanities◦Humanities: subjects like Literature, Philosophy, Art◦Can Science reveal to us truths that are generated/obtainable through Literature?◦Hope is the thing with feathers That perches in the soul And sings the tune without the words,And never stops at allAnd sweetest in the gale is heard;And sore must be the stormThat could abash the little birdThat kept so many warm.I’ve heard it in the chilliest land,And on the strangest sea;Yet, never, in extremity,It asked a crumb of me.(Emily Dickinson, “Hope is the thing with feathers”◦Poetry uses metaphors and imagery to express claims (or truths) that are not so amenable to the language of science, which is (supposedly) direct and plain◦To paraphrase the poem into scientific language would be to lose something quintessential as well◦Imagine: “hope is a chemical reaction within our bodies that can be found across all human beings” -bleargh

Science & Math◦Can we conclusively say that one is better or more important than the other?◦Depends on our criteria: utility, fundamental, certainty, objectivity◦Any other criteria?◦Utility –Science can give us truths of the world being synthetic a posteriori but if Math is analytic a priori, it cannot. Thus, Science > Math ◦But what of the unreasonable effectiveness of Math?◦Is Math that which reveals to us the inner workings of the universe or is it Science?◦Put another way, can we do Science without Math?◦Fundamental –which is more fundamental? Which discipline is necessary in order for the other to function/progress?

Science & Math◦Certainty: ◦Math generates knowledge claims via the axiom-theorem method, utilising solelya priori and deductive reasoning ◦Science arrives at its claims via the SM which is empirical (thus open to all the problems of empiricism) and utilises inductive reasoning. ◦So Math > Science◦Uncertainty Of Science:-Problem of Induction –cannot guarantee results-Falsification fails as a response to the POI-Contrastive Underdetermination means that don’t even know if theory choice is correct thus uncertainty-Selection bias of variables/ Salience Theory-ladenness–what they think to be important variables might well turn out not to be-Empiricism’s uncertainty –corrigibility of sense perception, or even if perception is incorrigible, there are LIMITS to sense perception such that even if we grant a scientist’s observations, there could well be something that he’s not observing and it is THAT variable which is crucial, not the ones that he observed-Unless Math is empirical…-What of Intuitionism?-What of Godel’sIncompleteness Theorems? Do they show that Math is merely as certain as Science?-Are there ways to mitigate the uncertainty in Science? –think controllability, repeatability and peer review

Science & Math◦What of Objectivity?◦Recall: to say that X is objective is to mean that X’s existence is mind-independent such that if no human beings were to exist, it would still be in existence◦Recall: Math is typically seen to be objective (Platonism, or even Empiricism). But let’s not forget Intuitionism and Formalism (Math as constructed and thus subjective)◦Yet objective can also mean non-biased.If so, the ‘universal’ bias of a Kantian-like filter of consciousness means that Intuitionism also views Math to be objective◦What of Science? ◦In short, because it is an empiricist endeavour, it is objective; it believes that the entities that Science studies exist regardless of human beings◦But… Instrumentalism vs Realism slides… (later)

Science & Math◦Mind-independent aside, focusing on objectivity as neutrality or non-biasedness, is Science objective? Or as objective as Math?◦Verificationistsand Falsificationists–essentially, yes ◦Kuhnians–Nope. Because of Theory-Ladennessand Incommensurability of Paradigms◦No such issue for Math –the language of Math is universal (formal language of signs and symbols) while there doesn’t seem to be any real revolution in Math, at least not in the same way as Science◦Different cultures across different times and spaces generated the same kind of math, different base and notation systems notwithstanding◦Euclidean and Riemannian geometry couldbe seen as different math paradigms because they seem to contradict each other but i