Scribd
Upload
80 views3 pages

Philosophy of science-104-Lecture-Note

This document provides an overview of the nature, structure, and methodology of science. It discusses key concepts like the scientific method, hypothesis, theory, and law. It also examines the philosophical underpinnings of science, including debates around demarcation, induction, and positivism. Logical positivists aimed to define science based on verifiable observation statements but struggled to reconcile this with universal scientific theories. Overall, the document outlines the basic processes and thinking behind the scientific discipline.

Uploaded by

endale gebregzabher
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
80 views3 pages

Philosophy of science-104-Lecture-Note

This document provides an overview of the nature, structure, and methodology of science. It discusses key concepts like the scientific method, hypothesis, theory, and law. It also examines the philosophical underpinnings of science, including debates around demarcation, induction, and positivism. Logical positivists aimed to define science based on verifiable observation statements but struggled to reconcile this with universal scientific theories. Overall, the document outlines the basic processes and thinking behind the scientific discipline.

Uploaded by

endale gebregzabher
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

GNS 104: INTRODUCTION TO HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

Course Lecturers: OGF Nwaorgu

THE NATURE, STRUCTURE, AND METHODOLOGY OF SCIENCE

Science can be defined as the effort to get at reality by understanding and appreciating some
latent but salient features of the universe.

• The term science has become honorific because scholars from various disciplines as well
as human beings engaged in different types of activities often claim that what they are
doing is either a form of science or is scientific. Also there are those who insist that many
things must be separated from the idea of science to avoid desecration of the discipline.

Demarcation

• Given the above, demarcation between science and non-science becomes essential. It is
also vital to understand the source of the prestige of science. This has been attributed to
its nature, structure, and methodology.

• Generally, the methodology of science has become accepted as the paradigm of rationality.

Structure and Methodology of Science

• Presumptively the scientist engages in the study of nature via observation or


experimentation and analysis. He must be objective, open-minded , sceptical, and accept
that nature is orderly. Also he should be independent minded, diligent, persevering, and
have love for simplicity. Clarity is crucial.

• The simple method of science can be presented as follows: 1) Observation 2)Hypothesis


3)Experiment or Further Observation 4)Inference.

Hypothesis, Theory, and Law

• The initial assumption in science is called a hypothesis and this matures into a theory or
law. This does not imply that the scientific theory or law can no longer be modified. So the
simple progression of science is hypothesis (theory or law) deduction and test. This is
because, based on the assumption of the uniformity principle or induction, the scientific
theory will form the basis of predictions or explanations of singular events in the universe.

• These predictions and explanations can be about the past or the future or even present
events we did not observe. These predictions are used to evaluate the theory. Their
outcomes will either validate or vitiate the theory. No amount of positive cases can give
the theory 100% certainty but one negative case can refute it because induction is not
vindicated by logic.
INDUCTION

Induction can be defined as a type of logical reasoning which proceeds from known premises or
observed cases to infer about unknown or unobserved cases. As the foundation of scientific
reasoning it is any form of non-demonstrative inference derived from repetitive occurrences based
on the principle of causality.

• Logic does not establish the principle of induction because inductive arguments are not
logically valid arguments. They are evaluated as cogent or un-cogent.

To defend induction on the basis of experience will entail the following: since certain observed
circumstances have produced certain phenomena both in the past and at present, they will
produce the same phenomena in the future. However, David Hume points that this is a clear
case of using induction to justify induction which a mounts to committing the fallacy of begging
the question.

Also the view that induction is justified on basis of numerous observed instances is ambiguous.
What number truly constitutes numerous? There are cases where people have made up their
minds on the basis of only one instance. In the same vein, some circumstances may be
unnecessary. The truth is that observation is always theory-laden as it is usually couched on
some assumptions.

The inherent difficulty in justifying the concept of induction or the uniformity principle made its
proponents to retreat to probability. They assert that even though scientific theories do not
connote 100% certainty they are highly probable.

This reformulation, however, does not solve the problem because it cannot withstand any
standard probability theory. This is because the observed cases are finite while the scientific
theory refers to an infinite number – actual or possible. The probability of a finite number
divided by an infinite number is zero. So, scientific theories are neither certain nor probable.
Furthermore, the observed cases are expressed in particular statements while the theory is
expressed in a universal statement; intuitively, a universal statement cannot be derived from a
set of particular statements.

POSITIVISM

• Scholars in this group are called the logical positivists. However, some of their members
prefer being called logical empiricists to show that they are followers of David Hume rather
than August Comte. Also the original members believe that they are advancing the view
began by E. Mach. The movement started in Vienna, Austria; so they were also known as the
Vienna circle. In the 20th century, they were a set of thinkers who attempted to demarcate
between science and pseudoscience. They accepted that science is truly based on induction
and observation statements. They rejected metaphysics, propagated the emotive theory of
ethics, and advocated the verifiability theory of meaning. The logical empiricists are very
influential in 20th century philosophy of science. Their verifiability theory of meaning has
implications for the nature and methodology of science. It is the most vital of their doctrines.

• The logical empiricists rejected metaphysics and as a consequence rejected all the a priori
metaphysical foundations of natural science; namely, space, time, every event has a cause,
the present resembles the past, causality, etc.

• They rejected all these a priori principles and insisted that every statement must be
verifiable, at least, in principle, unless it is a tautology. For them any statement which is not
logical or mathematical, and could not be verified is, ipso facto, cognitively meaningless.

• For them scientific theories must be verified through observation statements. This is where
the problem starts for theories are universal statements while observation statements are
singular statements and neither is derivable from the other.

• At this point the verifiability criterion collapsed as a method of demarcating between science
and pseudoscience. They modified it to verifiability in principle but this did not salvage the
situation for anything whatsoever is verifiable in principle. This made some of their leading
members state that a theory is scientific if it is confirmable. However it is still difficult to
determine the confirmability of scientific theories.

Recommended Books

1. A.F. Chalmers, What is this thing called Science?


2. K.R. Popper, Conjectures and Refutations
3. P.K. Feyerabend, Against Method
4. I. Lakatos, The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes

You might also like