PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE:

einstein theory , einstein didnt like his thoery related to cosmological constant
we exist in a universe bounded by another universe -> multiverse
Higgs Boson

Interpreting theory
Trigil down MOdel of Capitalism????
- pouring water on glasses...?

Limitations of Model of Science:

Instrumentalism-doesnt matter if true or wrong as long as our experience

corresponds to it

an idea that is not scientific doesnt mean it is lesser of value

those who assume to be scientific but doesnt deserve it are called pseudoscientific

demarcation critera:

verification theory - is there evidence

falsification theory - is there a limitation or a falsifying instance

you must let go of your theory once a better theory comes up to disprove it

Newtonian cannot explain eclipses, shadows etc in astronomy... wherein einstein

can explain those

Carl Hempel - Verification User

- it must be observed, demonstrated ..
- being part of Vienna Circle and Berlin Circle means they are
empirical and have high regards to experience

astrology is not science because you cannot confirm

Karl Popper - Falsification user

- a theory is not good if it accomodates all conditions
astrology is not science because you cannot falsify
- what qualifies a scientific and unscientific
- questions scienticity
Psychoanalysis and indiv Psychology ... they compete against each
other at the same time
you can use both to
explain/ interpret a singular incidence but with differinfg points
Historical Materialism/ Theory of History ... bends the falsifying
evidence to push their pet theory appear valid
Einstein Theory of Relativity- able to prove eddington's eclipse

****verification theory does not work here:

what you cant observe is not meaningful (eg. Continental Drift
Theory, Particle Physics)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------

#DEDUCTIVE NOMOLOGICAL#
H therefore I
 I is true
-------------
H is true

>> invalid if H = F and I = T

child-bed fever issue

Laws and their Role in Scientific Explanation:

Criticism of verification Method/ Theory
Incommensurability of Evidence to Theory (Thomas Kuhn):
- Observation
- Observation statements
- Selection
example leftists vs rightists in bomb issue sent to famous political
personalities

Problem of Induction:
- Uncertainty of future events
- Multiple interpretation of observed data
- example "All ravens are black" since all the raven i saw are black
therefore I conclude all ravens are black
new statement: All ravens are black except those which are white,
baby ravens, {fried ravens}.
for all x if x is a raven therefore x is black
Ax (Rx->Bx)
Ax (~Bx -> ~Rx)

## EVERY GOOD SCIENTIFIC THEORY HAS PROHIBITION ##

## CONFIRMATION SHOULD COUNT ONLY IF THEY ARE THE RESULT OF RISKY PREDICTIONS (eg:
theory of relativity)
LIMIT IS PLANCK'S CONSTANT IN THEORY OF RELATIVITY
LIMITATION OF QUANTUM MECHANICS ARE MACRO..

## CONFIRMING EVIDENCE SHOULD BE ... CHECK PPT

LIMITATIONS OF FALSIFICATION THEORY / CRISTICISMS:

Role of Confirmation
- modus tollens
- hypothetical deductive

Human Error
- how many time we can falsify a theory to say it is INDEED wrong
- you proved munggo plants can grow anywhere but it is didn't work in a
way.. is that a ground to say it is falsified

Historically Inaccurate
- that is not how all of these worked

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------

DATE: NOVEMBER 7

2 TOPICS
bakit naging panuntunan ang science
dapat maalam sa science para malaman ang mundo

why is there "premium" if you know scince than studying history

science is more tangible, practical than history
Practicality is not a virtue
"soft sciences" must be regarded the same with "hard sciences"
a theory that is scientific doesnt mean it is wrong

3 approaches:
epistemological, practical, morality

When to say a scientific theory is good...

being scientific does not imply correct

being unscientific does not imply wrong

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why Astrology is Pseudoscience

by Paul Thagard

> divides the sky into 12 regions, sun pertains to area iccuopied by the sun
in the time of birth

> introduced by Chaldeans and evident in early civilizations:

sumerian, chinese, mayan, indian

> Alexander the Great brought it to greece and rome

> Ptolemy- Tetrabiblios (2nd century AD)

> Johannes Kepler made a living from it

Great Depression during that time.. people want to find security/ comfort

> declined in 18th century and back by 1930s

Bart Bok, Lawrence Jerome, Paul Kurtz

called these three created a statement with 3 points:

1. Astrology does not appear to have a physical foundation.

Counter of Paul Thagard...
> Lack of physical foundation hardly marks a theory unscientific
(continental Drift Theory and link of smoking and cancer)
2. Belief in astrology is a result of an individual seeking answer to their
personal problems
Counter of Paul Thagard...
> Psychology of belief is irrelevant to the scientificity of said
beleif ..
> People might believe in good theories for illegitimate reasons.
> Our assumptions does not invalidate standard fields of knowledge
3. It is grounded on acient magical world/ view.
Counter of Paul Thagard...
> Majority of current science traces its roots back to magiacl
world/view.

Astrology is vaguely testable (Michael Gauquelin) --> cannot be verified

Falsification is also problematic (Lakatos, Quine, Dulheim)

Demarcation Criteria by Paul Thagard... WHY ASTROLOGY IS STILL A PSEUDOSCIENCE:

1. It has been less progressive than alternative theories over a long period
of time, and faces many unresolved problems, but..
2. the community of practicioners makes little attempt to develop the theory
towards solutions of the problems, shows no concern for attempts to evaluate the
theory in relation to others, and is selective in considering confirmations and
disconfirmation

IN SHORT OF THE 2 STATEMENTS ABOVE:

1. NO OTHER RECENT THEORIES DEVELOPED
2. NO ONE CONTRIBUTES TO DEVELOP IT

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------

HOW TO DEFEND SOCIETY AGAINST SCIENCE

By Paul Feyerabend

"scientists see science as something that cannot be worng and it is

problematic"
DOGMATISM

Take SCIENCE as a FAIRYTALE

> all ideologies should be seen in perspective
"take only what you need to believe in"
"truth is something we choose autonomously"
> don't take it seriously
> truth that reigns w/o checks and balance is a "TYRANT" who must be
overthrown, and any falsehood that can aid us in the overthorw of the tyrant is to
be *WELCOMED.

"Science is not an instrument of liberation anymore, case in point

education and scientific dogmas."
(TRUTH, FREEDOM, and MENTAL INDEPENDENCE govern human life)

** WE ARE NOT SLAVES OF TRUTH, WE CAN CHOOSE TRUTH OR MENTAL INDEPENDENCE

BECUASE WE ARE NOT COMPELLED TO CHOOSE THE TRUTH, EVEN THOUGH IT IS VALUED HIGHER.

WHAT MAKES SCIENCE REPUTABLE?

1. SCIENTIFIC METHOD -> concepts of science were developed from this.. though
other discovereies from pure chance

2. SCIENTIFIC RESULTS ->

ouroboros? snake eats its tail

benzene ring
archimedes
penicilin
AGAINST METHOD -> no other scientific method higher
AGAINST RESULTS ->
science is not the only field of knowledge that produces result... miracles