p160 kuhn and his critics
TRANSCRIPT
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
•How are observations theory-laden?•What kind of progress can science make?•Responses to Kuhn’s account from Lakatos, Laudan, and Feyerabend.
•How are observations theory-laden?•What kind of progress can science make?•Responses to Kuhn’s account from Lakatos, Laudan, and Feyerabend.
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Relative importance of:
Relative importance of:•Unsolved puzzles?
•Solved puzzles?•Fit with data?•Puzzle-solving power?
•Unsolved puzzles?•Solved puzzles?•Fit with data?•Puzzle-solving power?
Answers depend on which paradigm you’re
in!
Answers depend on which paradigm you’re
in!
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Choose paradigm which best fits dataChoose paradigm which best fits data
Paradigm determines what the data are!
Paradigm determines what the data are!
Theory influences what
you see!
Theory influences what
you see!
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Theory influences what you look forTheory influences what you look for
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Don’t notice problem with card!
Don’t notice problem with card!
Don’t expect black eight of heartsDon’t expect black eight of hearts
Theory of deck: ranks: 2-10, J, Q, K, A
black suits: clubs, spadesred suits: hearts, diamonds
Theory of deck: ranks: 2-10, J, Q, K, A
black suits: clubs, spadesred suits: hearts, diamonds
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Inverting gogglesexperiment:
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
What you’re looking at:What you’re looking at:
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
What you see (wearing the goggles):What you see (wearing the goggles):
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
But, after wearing the goggles long enough…But, after wearing the goggles long enough…
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
…see the world right-side up again!…see the world right-side up again!
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Then, upon removing the goggles …Then, upon removing the goggles …
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Things look upside down again!Things look upside down again!
WORLD + SENSE ORGANSWORLD + SENSE ORGANS
EXPERIENCEEXPERIENCE
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Challenges our straightforward assumptions about observation:Challenges our straightforward assumptions about observation:
SAME EXPERIENCESAME EXPERIENCE
SAME STUFF IN WORLD + SAME SENSE ORGANSSAME STUFF IN WORLD + SAME SENSE ORGANS
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Would be nice if we could be sure thatWould be nice if we could be sure that
DIFFERENT STUFF IN WORLD
DIFFERENT STUFF IN WORLD
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
DIFFERENT EXPERIENCE + SAME SENSE ORGANS
DIFFERENT EXPERIENCE + SAME SENSE ORGANS
Would be nice if we could be sure thatWould be nice if we could be sure that
WORLD-EXPERIENCE MATCH?WORLD-EXPERIENCE MATCH?
Different sensory input from world,SAME EXPERIENCE.
Different sensory input from world,SAME EXPERIENCE.
• Subject without goggles: tree right side up• Subject adjusted to goggles: tree right side up• Subject without goggles: tree right side up• Subject adjusted to goggles: tree right side up
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Inverting goggles experiment makes us question one-to-oneInverting goggles experiment makes us question one-to-one
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Same sensory input from world,DIFFERENT EXPERIENCE.
Same sensory input from world,DIFFERENT EXPERIENCE.
WORLD-EXPERIENCE MATCH?WORLD-EXPERIENCE MATCH?
• Subject without goggles: tree right side up• Subject adjusted to goggles who removes goggles: tree upside down
• Subject without goggles: tree right side up• Subject adjusted to goggles who removes goggles: tree upside down
Inverting goggles experiment makes us question one-to-oneInverting goggles experiment makes us question one-to-one
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Theory influences what I experience!
Theory influences what I experience!
Theory influences how I interpret
what I experience
Theory influences how I interpret
what I experience
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
WORLD + SENSE ORGANS+ PARADIGM
WORLD + SENSE ORGANS+ PARADIGM
EXPERIENCEEXPERIENCE
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
In Normal Science:more and more solved puzzles.
In Normal Science:more and more solved puzzles.
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
• Truth?• Better predictions?• Better explanations?
• Truth?• Better predictions?• Better explanations?
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Relative importance of:
Relative importance of:• Unsolved puzzles?
• Solved puzzles?• Fit with data?• Puzzle-solving power?
• Unsolved puzzles?• Solved puzzles?• Fit with data?• Puzzle-solving power?
Answers depend on which paradigm you’re
in!
Answers depend on which paradigm you’re
in!
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
No paradigm-free way to get an objective comparison!
No paradigm-free way to get an objective comparison!
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Value:•Predictive accuracy•Consistency with other theories•Ability to unify phenomena•New ideas, discoveries
Value:•Predictive accuracy•Consistency with other theories•Ability to unify phenomena•New ideas, discoveries
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Across paradigms:no guarantee of getting closer to truth!
Across paradigms:no guarantee of getting closer to truth!
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Across paradigms:more puzzle-solving power?
Across paradigms:more puzzle-solving power?
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Doesn’t fit with the rest of Kuhn’s theory!
Doesn’t fit with the rest of Kuhn’s theory!
Across paradigms:more puzzle-solving power?
Across paradigms:more puzzle-solving power?
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Kuhn is right.
So much for progress.
Kuhn is right.
So much for progress.
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Kuhn is wrong. How does science make progress? How to counter claim that observations are theory-laden?
Kuhn is wrong. How does science make progress? How to counter claim that observations are theory-laden?
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Issue with Kuhn’s view:
Issue with Kuhn’s view:
Makes scientific theory change rest on “mob psychology.”
Scientific choices really come from rational competition!
Makes scientific theory change rest on “mob psychology.”
Scientific choices really come from rational competition!
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Research program:Research program: Hard core
(hypotheses that aren’t changed).
Hard core (hypotheses that aren’t changed).
Protective belt(auxiliary hypotheses, may be changed).
Protective belt(auxiliary hypotheses, may be changed).
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Rules for change within a research program:Rules for change within a research program:
• No changes to hard core.
• Changes to protective belt must be progressive (i.e., predict novel facts).
• No changes to hard core.
• Changes to protective belt must be progressive (i.e., predict novel facts).
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Hard core (3 laws of motion, law of universal gravitation).
Hard core (3 laws of motion, law of universal gravitation).
Protective belt (how many bodies, positions, masses, etc.).
Protective belt (how many bodies, positions, masses, etc.).
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Don’t change hard core.Don’t change hard core.Make progressive change to protective belt.
Make progressive change to protective belt.
Bad prediction of orbit of Uranus.Bad prediction of orbit of Uranus.
Progressive changes = predict novel facts(NOT just correcting a bad prediction)Progressive changes = predict novel facts(NOT just correcting a bad prediction)
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Hard core (as is).
Hard core (as is).
Protective belt (add a planet past Uranus).
Protective belt (add a planet past Uranus).
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
• Now predicts orbit of Uranus accurately.
• Now predicts orbit of Uranus accurately.• Predicts novel fact: existence of Neptune (confirmed by observation with telescope).
• Predicts novel fact: existence of Neptune (confirmed by observation with telescope).
Is this a good modification of the research program?
Is this a good modification of the research program?
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Possible rule for choice between research programs:
Possible rule for choice between research programs:
Always prefer progressive research
programs to degenerating ones.
Always prefer progressive research
programs to degenerating ones.
But, Lakatos doesn’t impose this rule!But, Lakatos doesn’t impose this rule!
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
• Don’t change hard core.• Don’t change hard core.• Change to protective belt: predict new planet (Vulcan).
• Change to protective belt: predict new planet (Vulcan).
Bad prediction of orbit of Mercury.Bad prediction of orbit of Mercury.
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Protective belt (add a planet between Sun and Mercury).
Protective belt (add a planet between Sun and Mercury).
Hard core (as is).
Hard core (as is).
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
• Now predicts orbit of Mercury accurately.
• Now predicts orbit of Mercury accurately.
Is this a good modification of the research program?
Is this a good modification of the research program?
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
• But, no novel facts (hypothesized planet Vulcan never observed).
• But, no novel facts (hypothesized planet Vulcan never observed).
• Now predicts orbit of Mercury accurately.
• Now predicts orbit of Mercury accurately.
Is this a good modification of the research program?
Is this a good modification of the research program?
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Possible rule for choice betweenresearch programs:
Possible rule for choice betweenresearch programs:
Always prefer progressive research
programs to degenerating ones.
Always prefer progressive research
programs to degenerating ones.
OK to keep degenerating research programs around
awhile.
OK to keep degenerating research programs around
awhile.Maybe they’ll become progressive later …Maybe they’ll become progressive later …
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
• Rational rules for modifying a research program.
• No rational rules for choosing between research programs.
• Rational rules for modifying a research program.
• No rational rules for choosing between research programs.
So, doesn’t really make science more rational than Kuhn’s paradigm shifts!So, doesn’t really make science more rational than Kuhn’s paradigm shifts!
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
• Thinks Kuhn makes science look irrational.• “Research traditions”(similar to research programs).
• Thinks Kuhn makes science look irrational.• “Research traditions”(similar to research programs).
Similar to LakatosSimilar to Lakatos
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Research traditions:Research
traditions:Hard core (occasionally modified)
Hard core (occasionally modified)
Protective belt (frequently modified)
Protective belt (frequently modified)
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Acceptance - treat theory as true.Acceptance - treat theory as true.Pursuit - explore consequences of theory (even if it seems unlikely to be true)
Pursuit - explore consequences of theory (even if it seems unlikely to be true)Can accept one theory and pursue another!Can accept one theory and pursue another!
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Accept theory with most puzzle-solving power to date.
Accept theory with most puzzle-solving power to date.Pursue theory with bestcurrent rate of puzzle-solving.
Pursue theory with bestcurrent rate of puzzle-solving.
Rule for choice between research traditions:Rule for choice between research traditions:
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Makes sense of how we might accept a well-testedtheory of bridge-building …Makes sense of how we might accept a well-testedtheory of bridge-building …
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
… but also pursue a new, untested theory of bridge-building, to find out what we can do with it.… but also pursue a new, untested theory of bridge-building, to find out what we can do with it.
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Kuhn makes all normal science depend on believing the paradigm.
Kuhn makes all normal science depend on believing the paradigm.
Scientists can research theorieswithout believing they are true!
Scientists can research theorieswithout believing they are true!
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Normal science makes scientists look narrow-minded and dogmatic.
Scientific work is creative!
Normal science makes scientists look narrow-minded and dogmatic.
Scientific work is creative!
Issue with Kuhn’s view:
Issue with Kuhn’s view:
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Anything goes!
Anything goes!
Science is an aspect of human creativity.
Good scientists always think outside the box.
Science is an aspect of human creativity.
Good scientists always think outside the box.
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Galileo’s thought experimentGalileo’s thought experiment
What do we expect if the Earth is stationary vs. orbiting the Sun?What do we expect if the Earth is stationary vs. orbiting the Sun?
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
If Earth orbits Sun, expect cannonball to land far from base of tower.If Earth orbits Sun, expect cannonball to land far from base of tower.
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
If Earth is stationary, expect cannonball to land at base of tower.If Earth is stationary, expect cannonball to land at base of tower.
Galileo says: If Earth is orbiting the Sun,the cannonball also has a component of circularmotion sweeping it along with the Earth.
So, the cannonball would still land at the base of the tower, and the experimentcannot distinguish between a moving Earthand a stationary Earth!
So, the cannonball would still land at the base of the tower, and the experimentcannot distinguish between a moving Earthand a stationary Earth!
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Rule: Theory should be responsive to observations and fit with common sense.
Rule: Theory should be responsive to observations and fit with common sense.
Anything goes!Anything goes!
Galileo’s achievement:
abandoning this rule!
Galileo’s achievement:
abandoning this rule!
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Principle of tenacity:
Keep theory around so it can be fully developed.
Principle of tenacity:
Keep theory around so it can be fully developed.
Principle of proliferation:
Develop multiple theories in any given field.
Principle of proliferation:
Develop multiple theories in any given field.
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
• No selection mechanism or way to remove bad theories.
• Lots of labor to fully develop so many theories.
• Which theory gets used to solve practical problems? Feyerabend has no advice here!Feyerabend has no advice here!
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Science may be creative, but it’s not
Art!Scientific theories
need to fit with reality!
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Lakatos and Laudan:Kuhn left out the rational rules; including rational rules ensures progress.
Lakatos and Laudan:Kuhn left out the rational rules; including rational rules ensures progress.
Kuhn is right.So much for progress.
Kuhn is right.So much for progress.
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Feyerabend:Rational rules are for sissies (and so is “normal science”).
Feyerabend:Rational rules are for sissies (and so is “normal science”).
Kuhn is right.So much for progress.
Kuhn is right.So much for progress.
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Kuhn is wrong.
How does science make progress?
Kuhn is wrong.
How does science make progress?
(What’s a better description of
science?)
(What’s a better description of
science?)
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
• Describe how science actually works and what it actually achieves?
• Describe what science ought to do to be objective and make progress?
• Describe how science actually works and what it actually achieves?
• Describe what science ought to do to be objective and make progress?