?

Sumber: Philosophy, The Basics, Nigel Warburton, 4th edition. 2006. Bab 5. Science.

1. Apa pandangan yang simplistic untuk scientific method? 2. Apa kritik terhadap pandangan tersebut? 3. Apa kelemahan atau problem Induksi? 4. Apa solusi dari problem Induksi? 5. Apa itu Falsificationism? 6. Apa kritik terhadap Falsificationism? 7. Apakah itu Scientism? 8. Apa kritik terhadap Scientism?

Apa yang Salah?

Hukum dan Teori

Induksi

Deduksi

Fakta didapat dari Observasi

Ramalan dan Penjelasan

See: the movie

Our knowledge and our expectations of what we are likely to see affect what we actually do see.

The Simplistic View of Scientific Method and Its Criticism

Our knowledge and our expectations of what we are likely to see affect what we actually do see. What we see usually depends on what is called our mental set: our knowledge and expectation, our cultural upbringing. Note: A statement is theory-laden if its terms only make sense in the light of a set of theoretical principles. Theory always comes first: the simple view of scientific method is completely wrong to suppose that unbiased observation always precedes theory. What you see usually depends on what you know, and the words you choose to describe what you see always presuppose a theory of the nature of the thing you see.

The scientists can't observe, recording each and every measure of each and every phenomenon. They choose which aspects of any situation they concentrate on, and this choice too involves decisions which are theory-related.

Scientific Method and Science

Scientific Method arises because it relies on induction rather than deduction.

Inductive vs Deductive

The Problem of Induction

Betrand Russel's Turkey

Inference to the Best Explanation Abduction Abduction judge the plausibility of a hypothesis in terms of the sort of explanation if offers. Justification of generalizing about the future on the basis of the past.

There are numerous very different generalizations we could make on the basis of the past, all of which are consistent with the available data.

COLOUR: GRUE

GRUE: some emerald can look blue and the other green

Solutions to The Problem of Induction

If science is based on the principle of induction, we have plenty of evidence that our faith in induction is justified. (although it is a circular argument since it relies on induction). Some generalization seem more natural for us to make than others.
Probability

Karl Popper (1902-1994): Science progresses by means of conjecture and refutation (dugaan dan sanggahan)

Falsificationism

Deny that induction is the basis of scientific method.

Scientist do not begin by making observations, they begin with a theory.

Scientific theories are not claims to truth, rather they are speculative attempts to give an analysis of various aspects of the natural world.
Not to prove the conjecture true (verification), but rather to prove that it is false. Science progresses by means of conjecture and refutation. The generalization is far easier to disprove than to prove.

Patient's dream is really about an unresolved sexual conflict from the patient's childhood?

Falsificationism

Falsificationism: the degree of usefulness of a theory is a degree to which it is falsifiable.

Example: Psychoanalysis are logically unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific (or pseudoscience). If a psychoanalysis claims that a certain patient's dream is really about an unresolved sexual conflict from the patient's childhood, there is no observation which could possibly falsify this claim. If the patient denies that there was any conflict, the analyst will take this as further confirmation that the patient is repressing something. If the patient admits that the analyst's interpretation is correct, then this too will provide confirmation of hypothesis.

If there is no possibility of refuting them, then there is no way of replacing them with a better theory.

Falsificationism

Many of the most revolutionary scientific theories have originated from bold imaginative conjectures. Popper's theory emphasizes the creative imagination involved in thinking up new theories.

Critisism of Falsification

Falsificationism fails to take into account the role of confirmation (successful prediction) of hypotheses in science because the logical power of a single falsifying observation is still always greater than any number of confirming observations.
Tend to overthrow of a theory on the basis of a single falsifying case; they should be skeptical and investigate every possible source of error.

Falsificationist theory of science does not always fit well with the actual history of science. Thomas Kuhn: Science does not progress by conjecture and refutation, but by a series of paradigm shifts.

Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Scientism

Scientism: Science can explain everything that is important about the human condition.
E. F. Schumacher in A Guide for the Perplexed: The architects of the modern worldview, notably Galileo and Descartes, assumed that those things that could be weighed, measured, and counted were more true than those that could not be quantified. If it couldnt be counted, in other words, it didnt count.

The statement "no statements are true unless they can be proven scientifically", is claimed to be self-refuting insofar as the truth of the statement itself cannot be proven scientifically; the same goes for essentially similar views like "no statements are true unless they can be shown empirically to be true"

What is love?

Criticism of Scientism

The statement "no statements are true unless they can be proven scientifically", is claimed to be self-refuting insofar as the truth of the statement itself cannot be proven scientifically; the same goes for essentially similar views like "no statements are true unless they can be shown empirically to be true"
A totalizing view of science were not capable of describing all reality and knowledge.

A border-crossing violation in which the theories and methods of one (scientific) discipline are inappropriately applied to another (scientific or non-scientific) discipline and its domain.

Criticism of Scientism

Even though philosophy does not necessarily affect the way scientist work, it can certainly change the way they understand their work.