PHL3E01

PHILOSOPHY OF
SCIENCE
(PHL3 E01)
III SEMESTER
ELECTIVE COURSE
M.A. PHILOSOPHY
(2019 Admission onwards)
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT
School of Distance Education,
Calicut University P.O.
Malappuram - 673 635, Kerala.
190411
School of Distance Education
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT
Study Material
III Semester
Elective Course (PHL3 E01)
M.A. PHILOSOPHY
PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Prepared by:
Sri. Manoj K. R,
Assistant Professor of Philosophy (on Contract),
SDE, University of Calicut.
Scrutinized by:
Dr. Sheeja. O. K,
Assistant Professor of Philosophy,
Sree Kerala Varma College, Thrissur.
DISCLAIMER
“The author shall be solely responsible for the
content and views expressed in this book”
Philosophy of Science 2
CONTENTS
Unit - I
Introduction
What is Philosophy of science?
Aristotle’s Philosophy of science
Seventeenth century attack on Aristotle’s Philosophy of
science(Galileo,Bacon,Descartes)
Unit -II
Newtons Axiomatic Method
Unit III
Theory of scientific Method
Cognitive status of scientific laws
Theories of scientific Procedure
Structure of scientific theories
Unit -IV
Scientific Inductionism & Hypothetico Deductionism method -
J.S .Mill
Unit -V
Theories of Scientific Progress

Karl popper - Falsification
Thomas Kuhn - Paradigm shift
Paul Feyeraband- Against Method
UNIT – I
Introduction
A thought of which we should be curious about when we think

about philosophy of science is the distinction between doing
science and thinking about how science ought to be done. An
answer to the central problem of epistemology regarding how
canwe get knowledge could be that to get knowledge we should
follow the method of science, it is through this method that we
get true knowledge. The principal task of philosophy of science
is to analyze the methods used in various sciences. To approach
science philosophically allows us to uncover the deeper
assumptions that are part of scientific process. One of the tasks of
philosophy of science is to question assumptions that scientists
take for granted. There were many scientists who had contributed
to philosophy of science. For which Descartes, Newton and
Einstein are good examples. They were concerned with how
science should proceed, what methods should be used, whether
there are limits to scientific knowledge. So we could observe that
their concern was not merely philosophical.
Epistemologically philosophy of science asks what the nature and
essential characteristics of scientific knowledge are, how we can
obtain this knowledge, how it is codified and presented, how it is
scrutinized and how it is validated. Philosophy of science
examines the kind and natures of things in the world from the
metaphysical point of view. In understanding the world we need
to think about the critical analyses of the assumptions of the
scientists regarding fundamental physical, biological and social

stuff. The value systems that scientist have and how these values
effect the practices of science is an Ethical question.
Understanding how techniques such as experimentation,
observation and theory construction made scientists unravel so
many of nature’s secret is one of the key problems of philosophy
of science. Usually in most science textbooks there is absence of
historical depiction of the development of science. Scientific
ideas are presented as convenient as possible. Attention to history
of science is indispensable for doing good philosophy of science.
The less interest shown by scientists in today’s scenario could be
attributed to polarization between science subjects and
humanities also due specialized nature of these disciplines.
If we look into some instances in the development of science,
Aristotle put forward detailed theories in physics, biology,
astronomy and cosmology. The Greek astronomer Ptolemy
regarded earth as the centre of the universe, which was also
Aristotelian world view. It was Copernicus who suggested that
sun was the fixed centre of the universe, and planets including
earth was revolving around sun. This was called the heliocentric
model. This world view met stiff resistances, but within 100 years
it became scientific orthodoxy.
As a result there was developments in modern physics, these can
be seen in the works of Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) and Galileo
Galilei (1564-1642)
Kepler stated that planets move in elliptical orbits also his second
and third laws specify the speed at which the planet moves.
Kepler’s laws provided astronomers with planetary theory than
ever had been advanced before. And with the invention of the
telescope Galileo made many discoveries like the moons of
Jupiter, sun spots, mountains on the moon. This resulted in
scientific community adhering to the views of Copernicus rather

than Aristotelian geocentric model. Galileo was known as the first
modern physicist. It was Galilean mechanics which was more
prominent contribution which stated that heavier bodies fall faster
than lighter ones. While his counter intuitive suggestion was all
freely falling bodies will fall towards the earth at the same rate
[irrespective of their weight].
It was Galileo who first showed that mathematical language could
be used to depict the behavior of actual objects in material world.
One of his great achievements was using experimental method to
test hypotheses. In those days this method was not seen reliable,
it was an empirical approach to study nature. Next great thought
of modernity was mechanical philosophy which could be
attributed to French philosopher, mathematician, and scientist
Rene' Descartes (1596-1650). According to him world was
composed of inert particles interacting and colliding with each
other. If we have to understand Copernican universe it was by
understanding the laws governing the motion of these particles.
Descartes considered Inquiry based upon science of geometry as
the model. John Locke found it better to act as philosophical
under laborer to Newton regarding how we come to know
anything and truths about fundamental structure of the world.
According to Francis Bacon it is control and manipulation of the
environment which is the goal of science. Scientist try to
understand how this structure works, such that people can use this
knowledge to control, change and modify environment composed
of those structures. It is in terms of economic and ethical goal that
the justification for control and modification is given. Bacon
considered that acquisition of knowledge should be for the
betterment of the quality of human life. Control is made possible
through technological innovation. The method of scientific
investigation has within it the possibility of error and limits of
precision. It is also important for a student of science to have

knowledge of ethical and social dimensions of science.
Discovery happens when new concepts are introduced to
explanations also when different domains of inquiry are unified.
Domain is the set of event types that the theory explains. One
thing to remember is that there are also limits to which scientific
knowledge can extend itself. Particularly the tentative nature of
scientific knowledge. It also means that the scientist should be
open minded when such circumstances come up. There was
general program for philosophy intended for scientific
development which Bacon proposed, he advanced a new
philosophy of science. It was experimental method over empirical
speculation which he suggested. It should be practical benefit of
all people that should be the goal of science
Philosophy of Science in the Twentieth century
Brief historical overview of the problems and concepts that
have characterized philosophy of science from the turn of
twentieth century
It was the breakthrough in physics like the quantum theory and
relativity theory which formed the spirit of twentieth century
philosophy of science. So, philosophy of science concern was an
epistemological one, it was the description of the structure of
science such that the epistemological underpinnings are clear.
Propositional and predicate logic became the model for clear
reasoning, it was due to the impact of Frege, Russell and
Whiteheads logic. The foundations of mathematics were clarified
through logic. Everything was made explicit in a system by
Hilbert’s ideal of axiomatization. Positivists were eager to prove
that science could be grounded in our observations and
experiments. The difference between science and other
theoretical approaches to knowledge lay in that science was based
on facts. In order to solve the nature of meaning the confusions

inherent in natural language had to be made clear such that all
ambiguities are cleared. It resulted in expressing language of
science in sentences of scientific theory. First order predicate
logic was used to reformulate these sentences. Now there was
need of a criterion on how this language related to the world or
how the theoretical sentences were related to the observation
sentences. In order to prove which sentences were true there was
a need of a procedure, so meaning of the empirical sentence was
determined by the procedures that one would use to show that
whether the sentence is true or false, this was termed the
verification principle.
There were two main groups during this period, one centered in
Vienna (Schlick, Carnap and Neurath), called the Vienna Circle
that was established late in the 1920s, and the other, coming a bit
later, in Berlin (Reichenbach and Hempel).If no verification was
possible then the sentences was meaningless or they were termed
non cognitive. These included the statements of metaphysics,
ethical claims and theories of pseudo-science.
Laws of science were considered the most important sentences of
the scientific theory. Scientific explanation was conceived as
deducing a particular sentence (usually an observation or basic
sentence) from a universal law (given some particular initial
conditions about the state of the world at a time).
If a particular statement said to be explained if it could be deduced
from it. This is called the deductive nomological model of
explanation. Deduction of the sentence even before the
observation of the fact is called prediction. After verifying the
sentence, the theory from which it deduced is said to be
confirmed. But the positivists attempt was met with many
philosophical difficulties, since putting all claims and procedures
in logically simplified language was impossible. Later the view

point was termed logical empiricism.
Some group of philosophers tried to recapture the moments from
history where the scientific episodes were significant also which
made considerable progress to science. These moments where
analytically articulated. This led to the development of the
discipline called history of science. By 1960, philosophy of
science was an established discipline. Historical and
contemporary episodes were taken as case studies by
philosophers. By analyzing the case studies the flaws in
positivistic were brought about. The terms in observational
language were taken from the scientific theory they are part of
which means all observations are theory laden.
There were debates about changing nature of scientific method,
theory ladeness, continuity of scientific change, about shifts in
meaning of key concepts. New models and methods from other
disciplines were inculcated in to science. The work of Thomas
Kuhn, Norwood Russell Hanson and Paul Feyerabend posed big
philosophical questions, like issues in scientific change and
continuity. Kuhn had characterized paradigm as a set of ideas and
practices in a certain period of time. When anomalies are
detected, new paradigms emerge which repudiated the old and
supplanted it. Meaning of the same term changed in their use in
one paradigm to that of the new paradigm. Implication of the
concept of revolutionary paradigm shift is that scientific change
is discontinuous. But many philosophers were in search for more
accurate models is describing episodes in science, such that the
parts that underwent change were taken more sensitively also
which avoided the ambiguities.
Next phase was of research programme [Lakatos] and then of

research traditions. Some historians of science had claimed that
science could not be explained in terms of its concepts and
internal structure, it was necessary to take in to account the social
and political setting in which such concepts were developed. Only
then one could understand how they became acceptable and why
they were thought to be explanatory. The philosophical practices
of ordinary language philosophy became dominant due the work
of later Wittgenstein which influenced Hanson, Kuhn and
Feyerabend. After the phase of logical positivism and logical
empiricism it was the study of real scientific language that
favored attention. Philosophy of science emerged as a discipline
to stand along with ethics, epistemology and metaphysics.
Philosopher like Paul Feyerabend due to the intellectual disarray
in its nature and intellectual confusion as evidence states that
science had no identifiable structure. In science as in art anything
goes.
Aristotle’s Philosophy of Science

The Posterior analytics is one of the most important writings in
philosophy of science by Aristotle, it became available to western
philosophers during the later part of the 12th century. Scholars
could get new insights from Aristotelian writings on science and
scientific method.
According to Aristotle scientific inquiry is a progression from
observations to general principles and back to observations. He
states certain properties co-exist; it is when statement about these
properties is deduced from explanatory principles that scientific
explanation is possible. According to Aristotle it is from
observations that explanatory principles should be induced. The
theory of scientific procedure as in Aristotle’s work was known
as “Method of Resolution and Composition”. Aristotle
emphasized the deduction of conclusion from first principles.
This Aristotelian method was applied by Robert Grosseteste to

the problem of spectral colors, like when sunlight passes through
a water filled glass spheres, boat oar sprays etc. had common
characteristics. He characterized three common elements which
are shared by both of these phenomena.
1) It is associated with transparent spheres
2) It is by refraction of light at different angles that
results in different colours
3) It is on the arc of the circle that the colours are
produced
Roger Bacon later came with the suggestion that it is through
active experimentation that factual base of science can be
augmented.
In Aristotle’s conception, explanatory principles are induced
from the phenomena to be explained, there is deduction of
statements of the phenomena from the premises which include
these principles that statements are deduced about the
phenomena. It is only when deduction of events as proposition
are deduced from the explanatory principle that scientific
explanation is possible.
In Aristotelian philosophy everything is a union of form and
matter. Specification of the form is to specify the properties it
shines with these particulars. According to Aristotle, it is by
inductive procedure that forms are drawn from some experience.
Among the two types of induction defined by Aristotle is one is
enumerative and other is intuitive. An example can be cited
between the perception of an ordinary observer and that of a
taxonomist but it is only achieved after extensive experience.
In the second stage, for the deduction of statements about initial

observation, it is the generalization reached by induction that are
used as the premises.
Eg:-
All planets revolving around the sun move in elliptic orbits
Mercury is a planet revolving around sun
Mercury move in elliptic orbits

He insisted that the premises of a satisfactory explanation must
be true. So for him satisfactory explanations does not include
valid syllogisms with false premises and true conclusions.
Other requirements include that the premises must be
indemonstrable, better known than the conclusion, and causes of
attribution made in the conclusion. Animal is an essential
predication of man, while walking one can get hit on the head is
an accidental correlation.
Each particular science has a subject genus and set of predicates,
for example physics uses the terms such as position, speed and
resistance, for marking the motion of a projectile the predicates
applicable to physics are used. It is first principles of science that
act as demonstration for the starting points of science, they act as
premises for the correlations which are found at the lower levels.
In Aristotle’s view, final cause should be included in the account
of scientific explanation of a process. Also, It is necessary to
specify all four aspects of causation in the explanation of the
process. The four causes being formal cause, material cause,
efficient cause, final cause.
If we take the example of how a chameleon changes its skin color,

the formal cause is the conditions under which chameleon
changes its skin color, material cause is the pigment in the skin
which causes the skin to change color, efficient cause is the
transition from leaf to twig, final cause being to escape detection
from predators. It can also mean present state of affairs is
unfolded depending upon what the future state of affairs may be.
Not only that there was classification of subject matter of sciences
there was the need of the distinction between the science as a
whole and mathematics. Subject matter of former being change
and latter being unchanging.
Each particular science has a subject genus and set of predicates,
for example physics uses the terms such as position, speed and
resistance, for marking the motion of a projectile the predicates
applicable to physics are used.
It is first principles of science that act as demonstration for the
starting points of science, they act as premises for the correlations
which are found at the lower levels.
Seventeenth century attack on Aristotle’s Philosophy of
science(Galileo,Bacon,Descartes)
Galileo
According to Galileo motions of bodies are described with respect
to system of coordinates in space, which is quantitatively
differentiated while for Aristotle it is qualitatively differentiated.
Galileo used in his work idealizations such as free fall in vacuum
and ideal pendulum.
"It was stressed above that much of Galileo’s success in physics
may be attributed to his ability to bracket out various empirical
complications in order to work with ideal concepts such as “free
fall in a vacuum”, “ideal pendulum”, and the “frictionless

motion of a ship through the ocean”. This is a positive feature of
the ideal of deductive systematization. Galileo himself was quite
sophisticated about the role of abstraction in science."1
According to Galileo motions of bodies are described with respect
to system of coordinates in space, which is quantitatively
differentiated while for Aristotle it is qualitatively differentiated.
Bacon considered Aristotle’s philosophy as idol of the theatre
which he was anxious to discredit, idol of theatre means received
dogmas and methods of various philosophies.
Bacon
According to Francis Bacon, there is haphazard and uncritical
collection of data in Aristotelian scientific procedure, Bacon
wanted to carry forward Roger Bacon's of systematic
experimentation to gain knowledge. He also emphasizes the use
of scientific instruments.
Bacon criticizes Aristotelian haste in generalization, if some
observations are given there is tendency to leap to
generalizations, also in enumerative induction negative instances
are not taken in to account.
Failure in the definition of predicates such as 'attraction', 'heavy',
'generation', 'element' hence syllogisms which carry it become
useless. Bacon found that terms of syllogisms need to be well
defined.
Bacon criticized the Aristotelian overemphasis of deductive
method, according to Bacon it is only through proper inductive
support that deductive arguments can have scientific value. Bacon
introduced a new method, here there was more importance on
gradual progressive inductions and method of exclusion. He
considered scientific inquiry as step-by-step ascent from base to

the top of the pyramid of propositions.
There was method to exclude accidental correlations in the group
of propositions. Through the tables of presence, absence and
degrees accidental correlations could be identified.
Bacon cites exclusion as an important method in comparison with
Aristotle.
He also introduced a method of 'prerogative instances' which are
of special value in search for essential correlations. Aristotle
considered the knowledge of nature as an end in itself, while
Bacon insists on practical application of scientific knowledge. He
considers ultimate goal of scientific enquiry is power over nature.
Descartes
According to Descartes extension is the single property of bodies
of which we have clear and distinct ideas. If it is a body it needs
to be extended. Descartes mechanical philosophy is termed more
scientific than rival views, since other views entertained occult
qualities. Descartes believed that the ultimate reason of motion in
the universe is due to a perfect being. In Descartes conception
most general principles are at the apex of the pyramid in
comparison with Bacon who considered discovering general
laws by progressive inductive ascent from less general
propositions. Descartes considered God as the ultimate mover,
reason for all motion in the universe.
A perfect being would create world all at once and is set in to
motion, perfect being would ensure that this motion is conserved
perpetually.
From this most general principle of motion, Descartes derived

three other laws of motion:2
Law I. Bodies at rest remain at rest, and bodies in motion remain
in motion, unless acted upon by some other body.
Law II. Inertial motion is straight-line motion. †
Law III (A). If a moving body collides with a second body, which
second body has a greater resistance to motion than the first body
has force to continue its own motion, then the first body changes
its direction without losing any of its motion.
Law III (B). If the first body has greater force than the second
body has resistance, then the first body carries with it the second,
losing as much of its motion as it gives up to the second.
Descartes found deduction from intuitively self evident premises
is of limited usefulness in science, since the law that yields is only
of general kind. To determine the course of physical processes
considering mere general laws is not possible. It is very important
to determine the circumstances in which effect occurs. It is
important that in addition to the laws of motion specific
information of anatomical structure is necessary for explanation
about physiological process.
UNIT – II
Newton’s Axiomatic Method

According to Newton the best way to admit Nature of things is
arguing from experiments and observations by induction though
it is not a demonstration of general conclusion. According to
Newton particular proposition are inferred from the phenomenon
and afterwards rendered good by induction. The discovery of
impenetrability, the mobility and impulsive force of bodies and
laws of motion and gravitation could attributed to this. Newton
consistently stressed the need of experimental confirmation of the
consequences deduced by synthesis and he
Newton opposed the method of Descartes in deriving physical
laws from metaphysical principles, according to Newton what is
required is careful examination of the phenomena in question.
Newton affirmed Aristotle’s view of scientific procedure, this
method of induction and deduction is called method of Analysis
and Synthesis.
The consequences of the synthesis need to be experimentally
verified, there could be consequences deduced that go beyond
original inductive evidence. Newton applied the method of
analysis in the experiment where light is passed through a prism,
to induce the explanatory principle that sunlight comprises of
different colors and each color is refracted by the prism in
specified angles.
But Newton did not confirm the experiment after the analysis,
instead he set up another experiment where another prism was
used and light of particular color was passed through the other
prism to check for deflection through characteristic angle but
without resolution of beam in to other colors. So now he could
confirm his theory by the method of synthesis.
Law of inertia is not a generalization from the observed motions
of particular bodies instead it is rather an abstraction from such
motions. The movement of bodies in absolute space and absolute
time is specified in the three laws of motion. There is contrast of
absolute space and absolute time with their measures determined
experimentally.
Here Space and Time are ontologically prior to the motion of
bodies. Newton convinced the need of absolute space, he
advanced theological and physical arguments for its existence,
but regarding certainty of bodies in this space for which he was
less certain. Newton’s axiomatic method comprises three stages
first is the formulation of an axiom system, axioms are
propositions that cannot be deduced from other propositions
within the system. The deductive consequences of these axioms
are called theorems. Axioms of Newtons theory of mechanics are
the three laws of motion. The axiom system comprises deductive
organized group of axiom, and definitions.
The three laws of motion can be defined as
I. Every body continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion
in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces
impressed upon it.
II. The change of motion is proportional to the motive force
impressed; and is made in the direction of the right line in which
that force is impressed.
III. To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction:

or, the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always
equal, and directed to contrary parts.
In the second stage there is correlation of theorems of the axiom

system with observation in order to specify a procedure for it.
It is through the rules of correspondence that the link is

established of conversion of statements of absolute spatial and
temporal intervals to statements about measured spatial and
temporal intervals. The centre of gravity of the solar system is
taken as the reference point for determination of absolute
distances. The coordinate for measuring actual distances were
taken with centre of gravity as the origin in which the axiom
system was applied. In the Principia, Newton enforced the
distinction between axiom system and its application to
experience.
An application of mathematical dynamics is achieved after

experimental determination of how the resistance of a specific
medium varies with the velocity of a body moving through it. This
distinction between an axiom system and its empirical application
was one of Newton’s most important contributions to the theory
of scientific method 3
To confirm the deductive consequences of empirically interpreted

axiom system is the third stage of Newton's axiomatic method. It
is through progressive modification of original assumption that
Newton recognized the degree of agreement is increased. If we
take the example of pendulum bobs necessary corrections are
made for air resistance, it doesn’t matter what the pendulum bob
is made of, action and reaction are equal.
The two theories of scientific procedure affirmed by Newton are

the method of analysis and synthesis and an Axiomatic method.
Their common objective being explanation and prediction of the
phenomenon. In the techniques that qualify for induction these
may differ, method of analysis trying to generalize from results
of observation and experiment. Axiomatic method gives more
importance to creative imagination.
UNIT – III
Theory of Scientific Method
Success of Newtonian mechanics in bringing in verifiable

predications, made many philosophers to think that proper
application of scientific method would lead us to proper
understanding of the external world as well as our human nature.
Even construction of a correct social system relied on the
scientific world view. Philosophers thought scientific thought in
the process would replace metaphysics.
Cognitive status of scientific laws

John Locke -
According to Locke collection of generalization about the
association and succession of "phenomena" is what can be
achieved in science. He states that these generalizations are only
probable and cannot fit in to the rationalist ideal of necessary
truth.
Also an ordinary person views nature differently from that of a
trained scientist, though a trained scientist has more sophisticated
view, it is only judgement and opinion, not knowledge and
certainty. But Locke believed in the existence of necessary
connection in nature though it is difficult for us to understand it.
John Locke states that our ideas of colors and tastes arise due to
the motions of atomic constituents of matter.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz -

Leibniz considered teleology into a world view which is rather
mechanistic which focusses on material and efficient causation.
In order to integrate mechanistic and teleological standpoints he
found extremum principles, conservation principles and principle
of continuity were well suited. According to Leibniz, at the level
of phenomena scientists can only reach only probability, but the
metaphysical principles he had formulated were necessary truth.
There is a principle of perfection that act on the monads, on
accordance which the monad unfolds. Leibniz tried to prove that
there are strong links between metaphysical principles and
empirical laws.
David Hume -
According to David Hume we cannot have knowledge of the
necessary connectedness of phenomena. Observing certain
configuration of atom having constantly conjoined with certain
effects, but one cannot claim to know that a particular motion will
always produce particular effect. Hume divided knowledge in to
relations of idea and matters of fact, Statements of matters of fact
are only contingently true. He again subdivided relations of idea
into those which are intuitively certain and those which are
demonstratively certain. If we take the axioms of Euclidean
Geometry, we find it to be intuitively certain while Euclidean
theorems are deductive consequences of the axioms. But
skepticism in the philosophy of David Hume regarding whether
there is justification for elementary principles of scientific
method. Knowledge of the past behavior of an object may not
entitle itself for predictions of its unobserved behavior, neither
can it be true nor proved to be probable. This is termed the
problem of induction.
Sun risen enormous time in the past is insufficient evidence to

prove that it will rise tomorrow. The reasoning by which we arrive
at truths about unobserved instances from truths about observed
instances of things is called inductive reasoning. Humean puzzle
of the problem of induction even challenged Newtonian
mechanics. Even in questions of morality he found that grounding
ethics and political philosophy on scientific knowledge as
dubious. The skepticism of David Hume were bypassed by the
followers of Immanual Kant and John Stuart Mill who imbibing
their philosophical accounts of scientific methods.
Immanuel Kant -
Kant insisted that although we cannot prove that nature is
purposively organized, we must systematize our empirical
knowledge by viewing nature as if it were so organized. Kant
believed that systematization of empirical knowledge is possible
only if we act on the presupposition that an “understanding” other
than our own has furnished us with particular empirical laws so
arranged as to make possible for us a unified experience3
Kant distinguished between matter and form of cognitive
experience. Kant had prescribed various regulative principles also
he had defended the use of idealization in scientific theories. It is
through conceptual simplification that systematic organization of
empirical laws is facilitated. Kant states that there are many
idealizations which are facilitated by the human mind which is
not seen in the phenomena. The idealization such as pure water,
pure earth etc explain systematic explanation of chemical
phenomena.
According to Kant Teleological explanation are of heuristic value
in the search for causal laws. So asking questions about ends will
automatically extend our knowledge, in trying to hypothesise the
means. The empirical knowledge will get organized as it

supplements the existing causal interpretations.
It is in terms of laws which has a pattern according to which
events occur from that the proper explanation of natural
phenomena is made.
The impression that Kant had on Newtonian mechanics and
Euclid’s geometry was due to its scope and power, which was due
the deductive structure of these disciplines. According to Kant, it
is duty of the knowing subject to systematically organize
experience. In Kant’s epistemology ordering of empirical
experience is done by faculty of reason which prescribes certain
rules upon understanding. In Kant view, justification of any
particular system of empirical judgements may not be possible by
the regulative principles of reason. Prescription of the way in
which scientific theories are constructed such that there is ideal
of systematic organization.
Theories of Scientific procedure
John Herschel (1792–1871)
According to Herschel there are two ways in scientist proceeds

from observation to laws and theories, first one is through
inductive schema the other through the formulation of hypothesis.
First step in theory of scientific procedure is the subdivision of
complex phenomena in to constituent part and fixing attention on
the most important property that makes explanation of
phenomena possible. For example for properties like force, mass
and velocity are accounted for the motion of bodies.by
subdividing complex phenomenon in to simple ones.
Hershel cites an example of how auditory sensation, First of all

analysis of sound in to vibration of its source, the transmission of
vibratory motion through a medium, its reception by ear and its
production of sensation. Knowledge of impact phenomena which
issue in vibration and interaction of the moving particle which
surround it would provide complete understanding of sound.
Correlations of properties and sequence of events were included
among the laws of nature.
Herschel spoke of Boyles law and generalization that doubly
refracting substances exhibit periodical colors under polarized
light as "general facts". Galileo’s law of free fall and parabolic
trajectory of projectiles are lawful sequences. Certain boundary
conditions fulfilled with laws of nature being affirmed, like law
of free fall is affirmed to hold only for motion in a vacuum.
As discussed earlier there are two distinct routes from
phenomena to laws of nature. The first route is application of
special inductive schema. An example is the discovery of Boyles
law was through studying the variation of the volume of a gas
with it's pressure and generalizing from the experimental results.
Next is the forming hypothesis which has no fixed rule, like
Huygens did not have the conception of transverse wave still he
formulated double refraction by means of the hypothesis of
elliptic propagation first stage in scientific interpretation is the
discovery of laws, next is the incorporation of these laws in to
theories. In Hershel’s conception theories arise upon further
inductive generalization or creation of bold hypotheses that
establish an interrelation of previously unconnected law.
It was the combination of Baconian ideal of a hierarchy of
scientific generalization with emphasis on the role of creative
imagination in constructing the hierarchy. Ampere’s theory of
electromagnetism is an example for such a thought in which
ampere explained the mutual attraction or repulsion of magnets

by positing the existence that electric currents are circulated
within the magnet. It is accepted on the basis of experimental
confirmation of its consequences and not by method of it
formulation.
In context of justification, the theory and the law must agree with
the observations, an example of a "severe test" would be the
identical accelaration of a coin and a feather in an experimentally
produced vacuum. It can be that one can get an unexpected result
which can indicate that a law or theory has an undesigned scope.
We can cite an example where the elliptic orbits of binary star
systems was unexpected confirmation of Newtonian mechanics.
In order to find the reason for the downward acceleration of
bodies, ie whether it is due to the attraction of earth or some
mechanism internal to the bodies themselves, Bacon suggested an
experiment by placing weight driven and a spring driven clock at
high altitudes and in mines. Hypothesis is crucial only if every
possible alternative hypothesis is inconsistent with the results
obtained. Like Foucault’s determination of velocity of light being
more in air than in water was taken as "crucial experiment”. The
result was consistent with Huygen's wave theory, while there was
inconsistency with Newton's corpuscular theory.
It led many scientists to conclude that light was really a wave.
Even though there is too much significance is attributed to certain
experiments in evaluation of competing theories, it is the search
for falsifying instances which has been most important in the
history of science.
William Whewell [ 1794–1866]

William Whewell based his philosophy on a comprehensive
survey of history of science in which he examined actual process
of discovery in different sciences and tried to see if any pattern

among them. For Whewell scientific progress was successful
union of facts and ideas, the polarity of fact and idea to be the
basic methodological principle for interpretation of history of
science. He integrated the facts related to discovery under
appropriate ideas.
Whewell considered fact to be raw material for formulation of
laws and theories. Newton theorized upon facts inherent in
Kepler’s laws.
Ideas may termed the rational principles which bind together
facts. He advocates Kants view that ideas are prescribed and not
derived from sensations. Whewell claimed to see in the history of
sciences was three beat progressions comprising a prelude, an
inductive epoch, and sequel. The prelude comprises collection
and decomposition of facts and clarification of concepts.
Whewell also claimed that there are stages in history where
pattern was repeated also there was stages in history where pattern
overlap. Also explication of conceptions can accompany as well
as precede the formulation of laws and formulation of theories,
may accompany, as well as precede, the verification of laws.
The stages in theory construction involve decomposition of facts
and explication of conception are necessary. Reduction of
complex facts to elementary acts which state relation among such
clear and distinct ideas as space, time, number and force is called
decomposition of facts. According to him conceptions are
explicated when their logical relation to the fundamental ideas are
clearly recognized.
It is through the set of axioms which state basic truths about the
idea that meaning of fundamental idea is expressed. It is
necessary that ideas are appropriate to the facts to which it is
applied, appropriateness of conception is established only by

pointing to confirmations of laws and theories which utilize them
According to Whewell laws and theories are colligation of facts
or binding together of facts.
Whewell states Kepler succeeded in binding together facts about
the planets periods of revolution and distances from the sun.
Whewell took it as the triumph of induction. According to him
Induction was a process of discovery.
“Induction is a term applied to describe the process of a true
Colligation of Facts by means of an exact and appropriate
Conception”.4
Whewell found after examining history of science that colligation
of fact is achieved through the creative insight of scientists. Based
upon his principal thesis about induction he stated the process of
scientific discovery cannot be reduced to rules.
Tributary—River Analogy. Whewell compared the evolutionary
development of a science to the confluence of tributaries to form
a river. He concluded from his historical studies that a science
evolves through the progressive incorporation of past results in
present theories. He cited Newton’s theory of gravitational
attraction as the paradigm of this growth by incorporation.
Newton’s theory subsumed Kepler’s Laws, Galileo’s Law of Free
Fall, the motions of the tides, and diverse other facts. Science was
a continuing progression rather than a series of revolutions.
Structure of Scientific theories
Pierre Duhem (1861–1916)

Duhem agreed to the Whewell’s way of formulating philosophy
of science consistent with historical record. That successful
theories colligate or bind together experimental laws was in
agreement with Duhem's idea of science. He saw theories as
group of laws. It is by the description of the reality underlying
phenomena that theory explain phenomena. But according to
Duhem only representative function alone is of scientific value.
His view of the structure of theory bases itself on the position that
scientific theory represents and do not explain. His view of
structure of scientific theory comprises axiom system and rules of
correspondence, which correlate some of the terms of the axiom
system with experimentally determined magnitudes.
These axiom system and rules of correspondence suffice for the
deduction of those experimental laws which are represented by
the theory. If we take the example of the kinetic theory of gases,
the relation among the terms molecule, velocity and mass are
stated by the axioms. The concept of root mean square velocity
makes the axiom linked to experience. The correlation of Root
mean square velocity with pressure and temperature of the gas is
through the rules of correspondence.
Here we can see that there are many experimental laws previously
unrelated about macroscopic behavior of gases bind together.
Boyles law, Charles law and Grahams law are deductive
consequences of the assumptions of the theory. It is not the
conjunction of these group of laws that theory represent, the
relationship is more complex. There can be magnitudes which are
no way correlated with the processes of measurement which are
included in the assumptions of the theory, in that case axioms of
theory are formulated by hypothesis and not by inductive
inference.
According to Duhem scientific procedure is impregnated with

theoretical considerations. It is with the aid some theory that
scientist interprets experimental finding. When an instruments
pointer points to certain value, it can mean either the current in
the circuit has certain value or temperature of the substance is of
certain value. Also, an instrument can also possess experimental
error of certain values like -1 to +1, what all this means is that
indefinitely many theoretical facts are consistent with
experimentally given conditions.
With these facts Duhem criticized the ideal of scientific procedure
which Newton had given in the General scholium of the principia.
Recommendation by Newton of the restriction of natural
philosophy using inductive generalizations from statements of
phenomena. According to Duhem, Newton did not even follow
the inductivist ideal.
Norman R. Campbell (1880–1949)
Campbell states the statement of the physical theory is of two
different kinds, one set of statement he terms hypothesis, there is
no empirical meaning being assigned to its terms. The second set
of terms is called "dictionary" for the hypothesis. It is the
statements of dictionary that relate the terms of hypothesis to
statements whose empirical truth can be determined. The
boundary between axiom system and the realm of sense
experience is bridged by dictionary entries that link certain terms
of axiom system with experimentally measurable properties.
There are terms for which there are no dictionary entries, eg: in
the kinetic theory of gases, the individual molecular velocities do
no have dictionary entry.
Campbell subdivided physical theories in to mathematical theory
and mechanical theory and based the sub division on a difference
in formal structure. There is direct and separate correlation of
empirically determined magnitudes with important term of the

hypothesis. Mechanical type of physical theory is exemplified in
the kinetic theory of gases.
Campbell declared that a theory always explains laws by showing
that if we imagine that the system to which those laws apply
consists in some way of other systems to which some other known
laws apply, then the laws can be deduced from the theory.5
The molecules of the gas shares analogy with swarm of particles
in the kinetic theory of gases, there is presumption that particles
obeys newtons laws ,collides without loss of energy. Analogy
played an important role in the historical development of theories
about the behaviour of gases. It was wanderwaal who extended
the theory to account for the behaviour of the gases at high
pressure. Here it was volume of the particle and forces existing
between the particle about which certain assumptions were made.
Earlier these properties were part of neutral analogy.
It means for Duhem this was replacement of one theory by
another whereas Campbell described the transition as an
extension of the theory. Discovery and explanation of laws being
the aim of science, it is incorporation of laws in to theories that
explanation is possible. This was a challenge against inductivist
views of scientific procedure.
Carl Hempel –
Carl Hempel challenged Campbell's claim that it is in virtue of an
analogy that scientific theory may be said to explain laws
deducible from it. According to Duhem explanatory power of the
theory derives from arguments in which experimental laws are
deduced and analogies are not involved in these arguments.
In Hempels view it is conceptual integration, which Duhem had

called the representative function that constitutes the explanatory
power of scientific theory. Hempel conceded that analogies often
are of value in guiding further research. He did not dispute the
fact that analogies have been influential in the historical
development of the sciences. But he did maintain, with Duhem,
that since analogies do not occur as premises in the deduction of
experimental laws, analogies are not part of the structure of
scientific theories.6
Mary Hesse -
In Mary Hesse's point of view two types of relation hold between
an analogue and the system to be explained. First comes the
similarity relation between the properties of the analogue and the
properties of the system to be explained. Second is the functional
relation that holds between analogue and the system to be
explained.
Rom Harre -
Rom Harre favored a Copernican revolution in philosophy in
which the emphasis is shifted from the formal, deductive structure
of theories to the associated models. Copernican revolution in
philosophy of science consists in bringing model to the forefront
as instruments of thought and assigning deductively organized
structure of propositions to a heuristic role only and resurrecting
the notion of the generation of one event or state of affairs by
another.
According to Harre there are three component parts of scientific
theory -
(i) statement about the model
(ii) empirical laws
(iii)transformation rules
UNIT - IV
Scientific Inductionism and Hypothetico deductionism

John Stuart Mill (1806–73)
Both in the discovery of scientific laws and in subsequent
justification of these laws Mill found important the role of
inductive arguments.
The emphasis on science of inductive arguments is a hallmark of
Inductivism, subject matter which includes context of discovery
and context of justification. If we analyze based upon the context
of discovery then scientific inquiry is a matter of inductive
generalization from results of observation and experiments. In
relation to context of justification, Justification of scientific
theory is possible only if the evidence conforms to inductive
schemata.
Mill found that method of difference is the most important among
the four methods he advocated. In his summary statement of this
schema, he observed that circumstance A and phenomenon a are
causally related only if the two instances differ in one, and only
one, circumstance.
But if this restriction were enforced, no causal relation could be
uncovered by application of the Method of Difference.7
It may not be that two instances which can differ with respect to
the occurrence of the phenomena can differ in one circumstance
only. Mill found that the method of difference is useful in an
inquiry only if small number of circumstances are considered. He
even justifies this assumption, the need of a hypothesis regarding

the circumstances relevant should be formulated. It should be
formulated prior to the application of the schema.
According to Mill Method of Difference is found the most
important for discovering causal relations also the method of
agreement for discovery of scientific laws. But there is a
necessary need of antecedent hypothesis for the relevant
circumstance for successful application of method of agreement
and method of difference. From a schema it is usually inferred
that A cause of a, but it can be that B and D can be the cause in
different instances, that makes A being the cause of A only
probable, for that it requires that additional instances are made
circumstances are further varied.
It has been found that the method is effective only when there is
an accurate inventory of the relevant circumstance is made.
Multiple causation and Hypothetico Deductive method

It is through application of inductive schema that Mill identifies
scientific discovery. Mill recognized the importance of
hypothesis formation in science. Mill made a division based on
the effects of multiple causation, instances in which various
causes continue to produce their on separate effects the other
based upon resultant effect. Also, again he subdivided the
resultant effect in to vectorial sum of the causes present and
instances in which resultant effect differs from the several effects
of the separate causes.
Mill found that in the case of latter kind (Resultant effect different
in kind) of effects the circumstance need to be taken in to account,
it has to be correlated with presence and absence of circumstances
and then applying the method of agreement and difference. For
the 'composition of the causes' Mill found that the method of

induction cannot be applied. Knowledge of its component causes
cannot be known this way. For he wanted to apply deductive
method.
The three stage deductive method is given below :
(1) the formulation of a set of law
(2) the deduction of a statement of the resultant effect from a
particular combination of these laws.
(3) verification.
He did not entertain hypothesis that is induced from phenomena,
but he understood the importance of hypothesis. The requirement
for verification was high, in a way that no other hypothesis imply
the facts to be explained.
The importance of deductive method was highlighted by Mill in
the following way:
The human mind is indebted for its most conspicuous triumphs in
the investigation of nature. To it we owe all the theories by which
vast and complicated phenomena are embraced under a few
simple laws, which, considered as the laws of those great
phenomena, could never have been detected by their direct study.
Context of justification:
According to Mill, justification of scientific laws is a matter of
satisfying inductive schemata. Mill distinguished causal
sequences from accidental sequences, the difference between
causal and non-causal has value only if some way can be found
to establish that some sequences are unconditional (invariable in

our past)
According to Mill what is needed is a theory of proof which
stipulates the form of valid inductive arguments. In order to
determine which causal relations can be generalised from
experience will come under the purview of such a theory. Mill
believed that by the method of difference he can prove the causal
connection is both invariable and unconditional. And Mill
requires that the law of causation be a necessary truth in order to
justify his claim that arguments which fit the Method of
Difference proves causal connections
Mill reached upon a paradox that law of causation is to be proved
by experience, then it itself must be a conclusion. It also means
the very inductive argument that proves its conclusion
presupposes the truth of the law of causation. (Vicious circle)
UNIT – V
Theories of Scientific Progress

Karl Popper - Falsification
According to Popper, in science in order confirm or disconfirm a
theory the data gathered is not random but a process which it is in
the form of expectations. Scientific pursuit is scanning something
in particular with a search light.It is only when one has an
hypothesis to test, the one will use the hypothesis to pick out what
to observe.
Popper states that it is impossible for someone to observe
something without some theory or theories guiding the
observation process. Popper intends to show that there is bias in
the way scientist thinks which undermines objectivity. It also
means to say that we can only discover things which either fit or
conflict our expectations. When our expectations are frustrated by
our observations, we tend to get surprised. Though observations
are directed by expectations, it is not a hindrance for objectivity
of testing the theories.
But poppers claim could be refuted on account o f examples from
history of science, in which experiments that produced result had
nothing to do with the hypothesis that was being tested. There was
experimental results which led to discovery that was not planned
in the original experiment. So people can rely on experimental
evidence in order to discover things which neither fit their
expectations nor refute them.
Like the discovery of X ray, in which Rontgen’s turned on

vacuum tube which was designed to produce cathode rays. He
found that there was something coming from vacuum tube
penetrating air than cathode ray could, it could also penetrate the
screen. If that was so it could penetrate other things also. Also
when disc of lead was placed in front of tube he found he saw
outline of the bones of his finger on the screen as darker shadows
in the glow. This had nothing to do with what he was testing.
From this he found that he might be dealing with a new kind of
influence which he called X- ray.
According to Popper, there should be some mechanism in our
environment that would make us notice some myriad of unusual
things in our environment.
Ian Hacking states that in science significant observations and
experiments have been carried by people who had only vague
ideas of what they were doing and they were not testing specific
conjectures.
According to Popper important scientific research is driven by
conjectures.According to Feyerabend, to test a theory we do not
compare theory with experience, instead the correct description
of what is being experienced is determined and then the logical
relation between the theory and description is found.
Feyerabend states how something looks in experience does not in
any way determine the meaning of the terms which correctly
describe it. There is no necessary connection between the
experience of something and a true description of what is being
experienced if experience does not determine the meaning of the
term which describe what is being experienced.
So if scientific hypothesis is tested against statement which are

themselves merely guesses about how experience should be
interpreted then scientific knowledge will become dubious
Popper takes his account to adopt the best ideas of empiricism
and rationalism. From rationalism he gets the view that scientific
laws are the product of the creative activity of our minds and so
are not arrived at through experience. However, unlike many
rationalists, he thinks that although particular ideas about
regularities originate a priori, they are not known a priori. We
sometimes discover empirically that the most intuitively
appealing ideas are false. Thus, empiricism is right in thinking
that we decide whether scientific theories are true by using
experiences. Popper supports his argument by pointing out that
many claims which Kant and others thought to be demonstrable
a priori have turned out to be false.8
He argued that all statements are theoretical and contain
metaphysical elements, so that scientific laws cannot be derived
from experience. Even a simple statement
like 'I see a swan in the lake in front of me' involves various
theories: that the thing I see is not a decoy, that I am not
hallucinating, that I can recognize swans, and so on. Theories,
Popper says, are the result of the innate tendency of creatures to
impose order on the world and are, thus, creations of the mind.
Further, what keeps science rational is not some logical method
for justifying theories about the unobserved but the fact that
scientific theories can be shown to be false. On this basis, risky
and bold conjectures are to be preferred to cautious statements
because such conjectures, whether they fail or succeed, advance
science enormously. In Popper's view, the lesson to be learned
from the failure of Newtonian mechanics is science is a risky but
rational enterprise’ 9
Popper suggested criticism of an epistemology which seeks

obviously true foundations. He states that no metaphysical
assumption or scientific theory is immune to criticism. And it is
adherence to foundationalism which makes search for cogent
forms of inductive inference.
So Karl popper has developed an account of science which
emphasizes the fallibility of scientific reasoning and there are
attempts to dispense with induction.
Merit of a theory should be judged on the notion of corroboration
and not confirmation. Corroboration is a comparative notion. A
theory which has undergone more tests and falsifiable that a rival
theory and has not been refuted then that theory is more
corroborated than the rival theory. Highly falsifiable predictions
about everything in the solar system and beyond were made by
Newtonian physics, hence was more corroborated than
Aristotelian physics. No other knowledge source could make
remarkable predictions as Newtonian physics like the prediction
of return of Halley's comet 76 yrs before the event occurred.
While Aristotelian physics failed repeatedly, the prediction in
Aristotelian physics that when the effects of friction are removed
heavy things fall faster than lighter ones was found false.
Karl popper states that corroboration is only a measure of the past
performance of a theory and not future performance. It means a
well corroborated theory may fail any moment.
It can been found that during the begining of 20th century
Newtonian theory failed to predict for the motion of bodies at
high velocities.
But Einsteins special relativity turned out to be far more accurate
in its overall predictive performance.
Regarding the solution for pragmatic problem of induction as to

which theory to select for practical action from a rational point of
view.Popper states we should not rely on any theory because no
theory has been shown, to be true instead we should prefer best
tested theory even if it can fail any time.
Popper's solution to the pragmatic problem of induction seems
implausible as he seems to have no grounds for saying that we
should act on the best corroborated theory. In an attempt to save
Popper's view, David Miller has suggested that what Popper
really meant to say is that we should act on the best corroborated
theory not so much because there is any reason for supposing it
to be true, but because there are no reasons for supposing it not
to be true 10
Thomas Kuhn - Paradigm shift

Thomas Kuhn states that the procedures scientists use for the
extension of knowledge are not precise general rules for judging
the relative merits of theories. The interconnections among
procedures and assumptions inherent is complex and it is through
understanding the particular instances of scientific achievement
and doing scientific research (we apply what we have learnt from
the instances) that it can be learnt.
By understanding the instances of scientific achievement
scientists learn the underlying assumptions and procedures,
which cannot be defended on the basis of shared and more
fundamental standards. It on the basis of which reasoning and
perception scientific discipline are shaped. Based upon the
development of science, Kuhn states that it not on the basis of
shared standards that scientific revolution progress in science. It
resorts to saying that older theories have to be given up,its means
to say older theories cannot be said to be approximately true.
He states that the metaphysical picture underlying the new

theories is completely different from underlying older theories.
From Kuhn's conception it can be inferred that growth of
knowledge in science may not be based on precise general rules
or on objective standards
Mature science has a paradigm and reasoning works by following
the standards of the paradigm.
A paradigm is partly defined by an exemplary scientific
achievement in which some scientific puzzles have been set and
solved by using various conceptual and empirical techniques.11
Like the Newtons major work such as Opticks, Newtons major
work on light and colour. What sort of things constitute important
puzzles and puzzle solving techniques and working through
solutions to the puzzle in addition to key concepts are learnt by
members of the mature scientific community. It is through this
process that they acquire deep seated assumption about the nature
of the world and what observations and concepts are to be used
and which are most relevant for research in that discipline. The
paradigm shapes their key scientific concepts, perceptions and
style of reasoning. In this way they become viable community of
scientific researchers.
Members of the community will now perceive similarities
between what they previously felt were disparate things.
Paradigm is not a scientific theory, or even the core of a research
program although it may contain theories or hardcore.
Kuhn argues that it is not an accidental feature of scientific
research that scientists learn how to do it by being inculcated into
a paradigm. He claims that psychological and historical research
show that our methods for using concepts and for judging
theories are things which we extrapolate by analogy from

important instances and which we only usefully extrapolate by
adapting our judgements to particular contexts.12
According to Kuhn there are stages through which science
progress first is the preparadigm stage, in this stage there is deep
disagreement about the fundamental theory then there is random
fact gathering which is not based upon a procedure. Next comes
the exemplar, when there is agreement that a scientific work in an
area is exemplar, the ways of doing research which are used in
that work are widely imitated.
The kinds of procedures for gathering facts and solving puzzles
are widely used in the discipline. Exemplary work at the heart of
the paradigm is largely unquestioned. Such activities are what
Kuhn calls normal science. Most of the scientific work will be
produced during this phase.
There can be unsolved puzzles, Kuhn calls this failure to solve
puzzles anomalies. Newton had produced a remarkable basic
theory of physics which he applied to a range of problems. Yet
much of the theory required detailed work to be applied to various
problems. His equations were obscure and needed to be
interpreted to be applied to further problems. New areas of
mathematics had to be developed to come up with further
predictions. Over time, the predicted paths of planets were
calculated to a far greater level of accuracy. New planets were
discovered by working on anomalies in the paths of known planet
13
In the phase of scientific revolution, leading scientist working in

old and new wont be able to reach a rationally agreed acceptance
of superiority of the new paradigm. The conflict cannot be
rationally resolved. The traditional minded scientist would good
reason for their sticking to old paradigm. In Kuhn's view the
theory formulated under the new paradigm are very different from
older theories such that older theories cannot be plausibly be
thought to be the approximations of the new theories. It is due the
ontological assumption that underlie the new theory is radically
different from the older one. The difference is so wide that it is
conceptually incommensurable. This is when paradigm shift
occurs.
This can be explained by reference to Newtons theory and
Einstein’s theory, where at high velocities the concept of mass in
Einstein’s theory is radically different.
Paul Feyeraband - Against Method
In the against method feyerbend rejects the existence of strictly
binded system of rules for scientific practice. He finds there is gap
between the " real thing" and the various images that science has
created. In order to free philosophers from this attachment to
scientific reality, he brings in the notion of methodological
anarchism. It was the result of a historical analyses.
[t]here is not a single rule, however plausible, and however
firmly grounded in epistemology, that is not violated some time
or another. . . . Such violations are not accidental events. On the
contrary we see they are necessary for progress. . . . The
Copernican Revolution, the rise of modern atomism, the gradual
emergence of [the] wave theory of life, occurred because some
thinkers either decided not to be bound by certain ‘‘obvious’’
methodological rules, or because they unwittingly broke them.14
According to him what is required is reform science from the
abstract image of scientific method or make free of this image of
science and its process.
Only thing that does not inhibit progress is: “anything goes”. Here
the intention is not to replace one set of rules with another instead
to convince the point that all methodologies even the most
obvious one has its limits.
He states that theory contradicting experience should be removed
from science.
Scientific reality is subtle and too rich in content, many sided, it
is difficult to be captured by simple minded rules of philosophers.
Their conceptual world cannot be restricted to a particular
epistemological system.
According to Feyerabend aim of science is in providing
overarching theories which advance our knowledge rather than
solving minor problems in science. Instead of Mere accumulation
of facts and advancement of technologies as the nature of normal
science, what science should aim is to increase knowledge of
fundamental laws. For the advancement of knowledge, one
should help theories develop such that a widely accepted theory
is questioned. Feyerabend sometimes argues that such changes
can be so thorough that it is impossible to give a world picture
independent account of why the new picture should be preferred.
The standards themselves are importantly internal to the world
pictures of which theories are a part, so that those theories cannot
reasonably be judged to be true independently of the pictures 15
In a world which contains gods, relying on certain oracles is an
appropriate way to gain knowledge, while much of experience is
untrustworthy as it might be produced by malignant deities.
Further, Feyerabend says that what constitutes knowledge
depends on the world picture one is talking within. In the Homeric
world-view of the early Greeks, knowledge is a kind of list of how
aspects of things are experienced. In the world-view of the Greek
philosophers, knowledge is an understanding of what is behind

the misleading show of appearances.16
It is important to grasp how radical the implications of
Feyerabend’s account are. Feyerabend is, in effect, claiming that
there is nothing special about current science as a method of
gathering knowledge,
The statement that the present science is a more secure way of
gathering knowledge is only an assertion of the superiority of one
world view to another. Feyerabend insists that science should
have no special place in our lives: the understanding of the world
which science provides is not worthy of deep respect. According
to him it should not have a special place in educational system,
medical and legal system.
The funding of science should be under democratic control. If
some citizens wants voodoo to be studied scientists should not
prevent them from studying it. If some citizens think faith healers
can heal illness better than doctors, then they should be able to
practice it. Also if most citizens think that particle physics is
dangerous and its funding should be halted then it should not be
funded.
According to Feyerabend science provides us with objectively
justified knowledge, but he states that it should not have special
place in our society, these arguments is defense of his relativism.
References:-
Losee John,A Historical Introduction to Philosophy of science,4th

edition, , Oxford University press,2001
Couvalis George,Philosophy of science: Science and Objectivity,
Sage publications, 1997
Philosophy of science : An encyclopedia, ed.Sahotra
Sarkar,Jessica Pfeifar,Routledge 2006
Okasha Samir,Philosophy of science : A short introduction, OUP,
2002
PETER MACHAMER,Philosophy of Science: An Overview for
Educators
Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of
Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
15260, USA
PETER MACHAMER, A Brief Historical Philosophy of Science
https://archive.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu05se/uu05se04.ht
m
https://tarjomefa.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/377-English-
TarjomeFa.pdf
Notes :-
1. John Losee,A historical introduction to Philosophy of
Science,pp.53
2. ibid pp.67
3. ibid pp. 81
4. ibid pp.111
5. ibid pp. 123
6. ibid pp. 125
7. ibid pp. 133
8. George Couvalis, Philosophy of science: Science and
Objectivity,pp. 65
9. ibid pp. 5
10 Miller, 1982: 40 ff.
11 George Couvalis, Philosophy of science: Science and
Objectivity,pp.90
12 ibid. pp. 91
13 ibid.pp. 93
14 1993, 14
15 Feyerabend, 1981a: 1 62; 1978b: 70
16 George Couvalis, Philosophy of science: Science and
Objectivity,pp. 111

PHL3E01

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PHL3E01

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PHILOSOPHY OF

School of Distance Education

Elective Course (PHL3 E01)

Theories of Scientific Progress

A thought of which we should be curious about when we think

scientists regarding fundamental physical, biological and social

scientific community adhering to the views of Copernicus rather

precision. It is also important for a student of science to have

on facts. In order to solve the nature of meaning the confusions

in logically simplified language was impossible. Later the view

Next phase was of research programme [Lakatos] and then of

Aristotle’s Philosophy of Science

This Aristotelian method was applied by Robert Grosseteste to

In the second stage, for the deduction of statements about initial

Mercury move in elliptic orbits

If we take the example of how a chameleon changes its skin color,

fall in a vacuum”, “ideal pendulum”, and the “frictionless

considered scientific inquiry as step-by-step ascent from base to

From this most general principle of motion, Descartes derived

Newton’s Axiomatic Method

III. To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction:

In the second stage there is correlation of theorems of the axiom

It is through the rules of correspondence that the link is

An application of mathematical dynamics is achieved after

To confirm the deductive consequences of empirically interpreted

The two theories of scientific procedure affirmed by Newton are

Theory of Scientific Method

Success of Newtonian mechanics in bringing in verifiable

Cognitive status of scientific laws

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz -

Sun risen enormous time in the past is insufficient evidence to

means. The empirical knowledge will get organized as it

According to Herschel there are two ways in scientist proceeds

Hershel cites an example of how auditory sensation, First of all

ampere explained the mutual attraction or repulsion of magnets

William Whewell [ 1794–1866]

of discovery in different sciences and tried to see if any pattern

applied, appropriateness of conception is established only by

Pierre Duhem (1861–1916)

According to Duhem scientific procedure is impregnated with

empirically determined magnitudes with important term of the

In Hempels view it is conceptual integration, which Duhem had

Scientific Inductionism and Hypothetico deductionism

even justifies this assumption, the need of a hypothesis regarding

Multiple causation and Hypothetico Deductive method

the 'composition of the causes' Mill found that the method of

to establish that some sequences are unconditional (invariable in

Theories of Scientific Progress

Like the discovery of X ray, in which Rontgen’s turned on

So if scientific hypothesis is tested against statement which are

Popper suggested criticism of an epistemology which seeks

Regarding the solution for pragmatic problem of induction as to

Thomas Kuhn - Paradigm shift

He states that the metaphysical picture underlying the new

theories are things which we extrapolate by analogy from

In the phase of scientific revolution, leading scientist working in

philosophers, knowledge is an understanding of what is behind

Losee John,A Historical Introduction to Philosophy of science,4th

You might also like