The History and

Philosophy of Science
The history of science

Why is the history ?

I conclude that natural science as a form of
thought exists and always has existed in a
context of history and
depends on
historical thought for its existence. From
this I venture to infer that no one can
understand natural science unless he
understands history
The Idea of Nature R.G. Collingwood

The history of science

the study of scientific knowledge
natural sciences (physics,
chemistry,
biology,
and
mathematics)

The Philosophy of Science

what is the aim/s of science?,

what is its method/s?,
what is science?,
how does it differ from nonscience (religion & philosophy)
and pseudo-science (astrology,
phrenology, voodoo, etc.)?

The Philosophy of Science

what is a scientific theory and
how do scientific theories relate
to the world?,
how do theoretical concepts get
their meaning and how are they
related to observation?

scientific knowledge
Derive through
objective
human construct

How does scientific knowledge

grow ?
Traditional answer by humans
finding out true (or at least
confirmed) knowledge.
Current answer by humans
constructing the best current
knowledge

How does scientific knowledge

grow ?

a traditional
answer

a current answer

by mans constructing the

best current knowledge

by mans finding out true or

at least confirmed knowledge

assumes

assumes

knowledge is never confirmable,

certainly not probable

knowledge is that which has

been proven (or confirmed)

constructivism

assumed by some
to be acquired
primarily by

assumed by some
to be acquired
primarily by

evidence of the
senses

Is divided on the issue of

What should determine the selection of best

Current knowledge

power of the
intellect

Some maintain that these are

Empirism &
positivism
Bacon

Some maintain that these a

rationalism

Locke

Henpes

Kant

Inner disciplinary: criteria

(rational, logical, empirical

Outer disciplinary: factors/values

(social-psychological, historical

Descartes

Comte
Hune

Popper

Lakatos

Toulmin

Kuhn

Traditional Answer
Assumes knowledge is what has
been proven (or confirmed)

Traditional answer
this is assumed by some to be
acquired primarily by evidence of
the senses empirism & positivism
(scientific knowledge is derived from
the fact of experience, but
positivism somewhat broader and
less psychological view of what
facts amount to).

Traditional Answer
this is assumed by some to be
acquired
primarily by power of the
intellect
rationalism

Objective Knowledge
Discovered by
empirical means
scientific theories
practical
Through the use of scientific methods
(careful observation and
experimentation can lead to
discovery of truths about how the
world works)

Practical Knowledge
Procedural knowledge how to
solve problems.
declarative knowledge problem
solving through experience of
doing things.

Empirical means
Knowledge
derives
from
evidence through the use of
hypothesis
and
testable
experiment
Axioms or postulates, deductive,

Scientific Theories
scientific
knowledge
that
reliable,
rigorous,
and
comprehensive.

this knowledge empirically

support (verify) or empirically
contradict (falsify).

The Historical and

Philosophical Contexts

Schools of thought:
empiricism;
positivism;
pragmatism;
rationalism;
transcendentalism

Empiricism
17th British philosophy all
knowledge
is
derived
from
sensory experience (observing
and experimenting)
Bacon, Locke, Hume are the
philosophers.

Pragmatism
19th century American thinking
the meaning or value of an idea/
knowledge lies only on its
practical consequence
John Dewey (1859 -1952)

Rationalism
17th
century,
European
philosophy reason is the only
source of knowledge.
Gottfried von Leibniz (1646
-1716)

Transcendentalism
19th
century,
American
philosophy knowledge beyond
the limits of experience
Kant (
) & Henry David
Thoreau (1817 1862)

Empiricism
The philosophy term employed
that knowledge derived from our
experiences or observations.
Then, hypothesis and testable
experiment are used before
scientific
statements
are
accepted scientific knowledge.

Positivism
In the 19th Century the Baconian-cumempiricist held that scientific knowledge
was the only authentic kind of knowledge,
and that all other purported forms of
knowledge religion, metaphysics etc.
were in fact meaningless nonsense

 How would you currently define

science?

Positivism
The
Baconian
of
science
emphasized the role of empirical
observation and experiment as
the distinctive feature of the
scientific method: controlled
observation and experiment was
the basic, and built up by
inductive inference.

Positivism
This account implied a directly view
of science (nature in reality as
empirical science), and the scientist
plays a passive role in that he simply
discovers the laws that already there,
inscribed in nature.

Humes Naturalism
17 century (1711 -1176)
The British empiricist who held that all
knowledge should derived from ideas
implanted in the mind by way of
sense perception, that is the
knowledge of the world that we get
through the senses of light, touch,
hearing, smell, and so on.

Inductivism
Science as knowledge derived
from the facts of experience:
- a widely held common sense
view of science;
- nave inductivism;
- logic & deductive reasoning;
- prediction and explanation in the
inductivist account.

A widely held commonsense

view of science

Facts are directly given to careful,

unprejudiced observers via the senses
- seeing is believing
- visual experiences not determined
solely by the object viewed
- observable facts expressed as
statements

A widely held commonsense

view of science

Facts are prior to and independent of

theory
Facts constitute a firm and reliable
foundation for scientific knowledge

Seeing is believing
The sense of sight is used to observe
the
world.
The
account
of
observation
incorporated
into
empiricist view of science can be
seen
i. a human observer has more or less direct
assess to knowledge of some facts about
the world insofar as they are recorded by
the brain in the act of seeing

Seeing is believing
ii. Two normal observers viewing

the same object from the same

place will see the same thing.

Visual experiences not

determined solely by the
object viewed

Two normal observers viewing the

same object from the same place do
not necessarily have identical visual
experiences, or two observers need
not see the same thing.

Visual experiences not

determined solely by the
object viewed

Observers viewing the same scene from

the same place see the same thing but
interpret what they see differently.
Although the cause of what is seen
resulted from the images form on the
retinas, cause resulted from the inner state
of his/her mind or brain depends on his/her
cultural upbringing, knowledge, and
expectations.

Visual experiences not

determined solely by the
object viewed

The dependence of observing on the state

of mind or brain is not so sensitive, thus
communication
and science become
impossible.
Although all observers have a sense in
which they are confronted by, look at, and
hence see, the same thing, but it does not
follow from this that they have identical
perceptual experiences.

Visual experiences not

determined solely by the
object viewed

Thus, what observers see, the

subjective experiences that they
undergo, when viewing an object is
not determined solely by the images
on their retinas, but depends also on
experience,
knowledge,
and
expectations of the observer

Observable facts expressed

as statements
Recording observable facts, not only
requires the reception of the stimuli,
but also requires the knowledge of
appropriate conceptual scheme and
how to apply it.

Facts are prior to theory

Science is derived from the facts
scientific knowledge is constructed by
establishing the facts, then building
the theory to fit them.
These perceptions depend on prior
knowledge, state of preparedness,
and expectations.

Nave Inductivism
Science starts with observation, the
observer should have normal,
unimpaired sense organs, faithfully
record what s/he can see, hear,
touch, taste to be the case with
respect to the situation s/he is
observing,
and
do
this
with
unprejudiced mind.

Nave Inductivism
the observation statements then form
the basis from which the laws and
theories that make up scientific
knowledge to be derived. This
singular statements refer to a
particular occurrence or state of
affairs at a particular place at a
particular time.

Nave Inductivism
Universal statements refer to all
events of a particular kind at all
places and atall times. For example,
all planets wherever they are situated,
always move in ellipses around their
sun.

The problems of induction &

other problems with
inductivism

Scientific methods in science is

considered as nave inductivism.
Nave inductivist argues that science
starts with observation.

The problems of induction &

other problems with
inductivism

In other words, scientific knowledge is

derived from observation. The
problems of this scientific methods
cast on the validity and justifiability of
the principle of induction.

The problems of induction &

other problems with
inductivism
Inductive arguments are not logically valid
arguments, and thus cannot be justified purely
on logical grounds
it is not the case that, if the premises of
an inductive inference are true, then the
conclusion must be true. It is possible for
the conclusion of an inductive argument to
be false and for the premises to be true,
and yet for no contradiction to be involved.

The problems of induction &

other problems with
inductivism

observations be made under a wide

variety of circumstances

Logic and deductive

reasoning
Once scientist has universal laws and

theories at his/her disposal, then it is

possible for him/her to derive from
them to make explanations and
predictions,
The kind of reasoning in derivations of
this kind is called deductive reasoning.

Deductive
the process of reasoning from
one or more general statements
about what is known before
conclusion is made.
here, true premises are used.

Scientific methods
Knowledge acquired by means
of experiment observation,
explanation, and prediction

Current Answer
Knowledge is never confirmable,
certainly
not
provable

constructivism

Current Answer
This thought is divided on the issue of what
should the selection of best current
knowledge
- some maintain that these are inner
disciplinary criteria (rational, logical,
empirical)
- some maintain that these are disciplinary
factors/values (socio psychological,
historical)

Falsificationism
This term also called as hypotheticodeductivism as a methodology of
science
This
thought
emphasizes
the
demarcation between science and
metaphysics, and the description of
scientific method.

Falsificationism
According to Popper, the first is
denying the status of science to
Marxism and certain type of social
science, whereas the second is
unorthodox, concerned as it is with
the scientists treatment of his/her
theoretical ideas, rather than their
framing.

Falsificationism
scientific statements must be testable
or falsifiable
- deduction of consequences from the
theory, which consequences have
the form of singular statements
- the basic statements of the science
in question must be identified
(theoretical elements)

Falsificationism
by accepting theses statements, the
scientist makes them and their
associated theories unfalsifiable.
scientific statements must remain
tentative forever.

Conjectures and Refutations

the
hypothetico-deductive
system
originates from logical positivism, a
school of philosophy according to which
no statement about the world could be
meaningful unless it was, at least in
principle, empirically verifiable.
this system emphasizes the importance
not of verifying new ideas but of trying
to falsify them empirically.

Falsificationism
As the account of science became
more and more discrepant with the
actual practice of science in the 19th
century and 20th century, the complex
and abstract theories developed,
especially in physics, were not clearly
inferred from sensory observations.

Falsificationism
For example, the entities postulated
by these theories elementary
particles, waves, fields, etc. did not
exist in actual reality, but in fact
models or
metaphorical devices
which were justified in terms of their
usefulness in probing the secrets of
nature.

Falsificationism
When it is said that light has a wave
structure, meaning that light behaves, in
some respect, as if it had a wave structure.
Thus, the scientist is no longer seen as a
passive observer discovering the law of
nature that are already there awaiting him,
but instead having an active and creative
role in the construction of scientific theories.

Falsificationism
These aspects of scientific practice,
emphasize
on
the
theoretical
superstructure,
and
not
on
observational base

Falsificationism

There cannot be any direct

connection between the observations
and the generalisations (laws and
theories) of science.

Falsificationism
Inductive inference cannot be made

from a limited number of observations

about particular things to unrestricted
generalisation about all things of a
certain class. Thus, according to
falsificationist, inductive inference is
not an essential feature of science.

Falsificationism
But falsificationists saw science as a
process of conjecturing which may come
from intuition or from imagination. Here,
the facts wont tell the scientist which of
the scientific conjectures are true, but the
facts will tell scientist which scientific
conjectures are false.

Falsificationism
Thus, theory cannot be conclusively
verified by particular observations, but it
may be conclusively falsified or refuted by
particular observations.

A logical point of
falsificationalism
Some theories can be shown to be
false by an appeal to the results of
observation and experiment.
Although it is assumed that true
observational
statements
are
available, it is never possible to
arrive at universal laws and theories
by logical deductions.

A logical point of
falsificationalism
However, it is possible to perform
logical deductions starting from
singular observation statements as
premises, to arrive at the falsity of
universal laws and theories by logical
deduction.

A logical point of
falsificationalism example
a cat which was not black was observed at
place x at time t, then it logically follows from
this that all cats are black is false, that is
the argument is logically valid deduction
Premise : a cat, which was not black, was at
place x at time t
Conclusion : not all cats are black
Here, if the premise is asserted and the
conclusion denied, a contradiction is involved.

Other examples of trivial logical

point of falsificationism
Premise : A 10 kg weight, and 1 kg weight in free fall move downwards at
roughly the same speed
Conclusion : then bodies fall at speeds proportional to their weight is false.
Premise : A ray of light passing close to the sun is deflected in a curved
path
Conclusion : it is not the case that light necessarily travels in straight lines.
Thus, the falsity of universal statements can be deduced from suitable
single statements.

Falsifiability as a criterion for

theories
This school of thought sees science as a set of hypotheses that are

tentatively proposed, aimed at describing the behaviour of some aspect

of the world or universe. But, not any hypothesis will do.
To fulfill condition that any hypothesis must satisfy if it is granted the
status of scientific law or theory, an hypothesis must be falsifiable. For
example,
1. it never rains on Sundays this assertion is falsifiable and false
because it can be falsified by observing rain to fall on a Sunday
2. all substances expand when heated this assertion is falsifiable
and false because it can be falsified by an observation that some
substance, x, did not expand when heated at time t (eg: water near its
freezing point).
Thus, this conclusively refutes or falsifies the scientific
conjecture that all substances expand when heated.

Example of assertion that is

falsifiable
3. heavy object such as brick when released near the surface of the earth
fall straight downward if not impeded this assertion may be true, but it is
falsifiable because the next brick to be released will fall upwards.
Here, no logical contradiction is involved, the brick fell upwards
when released.
4. When a ray light is reflected from a plane mirror, the angle of incidence is
equal to the angle of reflection this assertion may be true, but it is falsifiable
because a ray of light incident on a mirror at some oblique angle
could conceivably be reflected in a direction perpendicular to the
mirror. This will never happen if the law of reflection happens to be
true, but no logical contradiction would be involved if it did.

Example of assertion that is

falsifiable
3. heavy object such as brick when released near the surface of the earth
fall straight downward if not impeded this assertion may be true, but it is
falsifiable because the next brick to be released will fall upwards.
Here, no logical contradiction is involved, the brick fell upwards
when released.
4. When a ray light is reflected from a plane mirror, the angle of incidence is
equal to the angle of reflection this assertion may be true, but it is falsifiable
because a ray of light incident on a mirror at some oblique angle
could conceivably be reflected in a direction perpendicular to the
mirror. This will never happen if the law of reflection happens to be
true, but no logical contradiction would be involved if it did.

The hypothetico-deductive view of

science (Popperism)
this view known as falsificationism which states that science
does not start with stark observation, but with problems.
to solve the problem, hypotheses are falsified and then
tested.
deductions are made which are then tested again in an
attempt
to disprove the hypothesis.
if deductions fail, then the theory becomes more
corroborated and
if deductions succeed, the theory will be rejected.
the falsificationist view of science as falsifying theories and
replacing them with the better one.

Popperism

The first view is the ultimate explanation by essences. Essentialism is part

Galilean philosophy of science. This view is distinguished by three element
(doctrines):
i. the scientist aims at findings a true theory or description of the world
(especially of its regularities or laws) which also an explanation of
observable facts
ii. The scientist can succeed in finally establishing the truth of such theorie
beyond all reasonable doubts
iii. The best and truly scientific theories describe the essences or the essen
nature of things the realities which lie behind the appearance
Popper accepts (i), thinks (ii) needs correction, for all that a scientist can d
eliminate those theories that do not stand up to the most severe tests but h
never be sure that new tests may not lead him to modify or discard his theo
Popper disagrees (iii) that science aims at ultimate explanation an explan
which by its nature cannot be further explained and which in no need of
further explanation.

Popperism
The second view considers theories as instruments. The

function of theory is
described in the following
a, b are phenomena
A, B are corresponding realities behind these
appearances
, are descriptions or symbolic representations of
these realities
E are essential properties of A, B
is the theory describing E
From and , we can deduce p; this means we can explain
with the help of our theory why leads to or is the cause of b. A
representation of instrumentalism can be obtained from this
schema by omitting the universe of realities ; then describes a,
and directly describes b and describes nothing; it is mainly
an instrument which helps us to deduce from . This is the

Popperism cont

The third view is that Popper preserves the Galilean doctrine which the scie
aims at a true explanation of observable facts; and it combines this doctrin
the non-Galilean view that though this remains the aim of the scientist, bu
can never know for certain whether his findings are true, although he may
sometimes establish with reasonable certainty that a theory is false.
Here, scientific theories are genuine conjectures highly informative guess
about the world although not verifiable (not capable of being shown to be
They are serious attempts to discover the truth.

Conjectures Poppers
examples

I hold that observations are more or less indirect, and that it is doubtful w
the distinction between directly observable incidents and whatever is only
indirectly leads us anywhere. I cannot but think that it is a mistake to deno
Newtonian forces (the causes of acceleration) as occult, and to try to disca
them (as has been suggested) in favour of acceleration. For acceleration c
not be observed any more directly than forces; and they are just dispositio
the statement that a bodys velocity is accelerated tells us that the bodys
in the next second from now will exceed its present velocity

Dispositional - examples

all universal are dispositional.

if breakable is dispositional, so is broken.
red is dispositional: a thing is red if it is able to reflect a certain kind of
if it looks red in certain situation. But even looking re
dispositional. It describes the disposition of a thing t
make onlookers agree that it looks red.
There are degrees of dispositional character: able to conduct electricity is
dispositional in a higher degree than conducting electricity now which is v
highly dispositional. These degrees correspond closely to those of conjectu
hypothetical character of theories.

Popperisms View of Science

i.
ii.
iii.

Scientific knowledge consists of theoretical conjectures which

Have been falsified or refuted
Have still to be tested by attempted falsifications
Have so far resisted all attempts at falsification, these conjectures are still open
to possible falsification and they cannot be seen as being finally and
conclusively true.
The crucial feature of scientific method is actively seek to falsify and refute the
conjecture or hypothesis presented to explain natural phenomena.
Through excluding falsified conjectures, the truth becomes closer and closer but
It does not mean to say finally and conclusively this is the truth.
Thus, this school of thought emphasizes on the creative and imaginative side of
the scientific process

Problems of Popperism
i. The notion of falsification it is possible to falsify or refute a scientific generalisation
conclusively by a single observation. This assumption indicates that direct
observations of natural phenomena can be made (this assumption contradicts
Popperism that observations always take place within the context of a theory they
are theory dependent or theory laden), and
those observations are themselves not subject to falsification (this assumption
again flouts the falsification principle itself that every scientific statement must be
open to falsification).
For example,
a metal does not expand when heated.
This observation statement can never be infallibly true because they may well be
falsified in the future. Theories then cannot be falsified by individual observation
statements because those individual observation statements can never be
conclusively true.

Problems of Popperism cont

ii. The failure to account for the actual historical practice of science since
falsification or refutation has not been seen as essential by scientists. Theories
are often maintained by scientists, and this is ofteh the case when there is no
clear alternative to the theory in question.
For example,
there is evidence (prima facie) which falsifies the theory of evolution,
but the explanatory value of the theory is so great and the alternatives to
the theory so unthinkable, that the scientist holds on to the theory despite
the apparent evidence against it.

Lakatos (1922-1974)
He attempted to reformulate the problems of Popperism by distinguishing three
versions of falsifiability principle.
i. dogmatic falsification which claims that a simple observation can refute
a scientific theory
ii. Nave methodological falsification
iii. Sophisticated methodological falsification

The Route to Normal

Science
According to Kuhn, a scientific
community cannot practice its trade
without some set of accepted beliefs.
Thus, normal science means research
based on one or more past scientific
achievements, achievements that
some particular scientific community
acknowledges for a time as supplying
the foundation for its further practice.

The Route to Normal

Science (2)
These achievements called as
paradigms

Paradigms

Refer to each great scientific epoch which dictate in effect what is to be con
science at any particular time and what is not.
Thus, the areas of scientific research that are thought to be interesting and
important, the issues that are considered to be problems and those that ar
the style of scientific research, even what is considered to be scientific fact
these are all dictated by the paradigms or models of science that are adopt
at any one time.

The structure of scientific

revolutions

Kuhn challenged inductvist anf falsificationist accounts of science because h

that these traditional accounts of science do not bear comparison with histo
evidence.
He developed account of science as an attempt to give a theory more in kee
with the historical situation. The history of the process is seen as the domin
paradigm (the pre-history of the mature science), and the mature of science
as the emergence of a specialist group or dominant group
The emphasis of this theory is placed on the revolutionary character of scien
progress, where a revolution involves the abandonment of one theoretical s
and its replacement by another, incompatible one.
Kuhns picture of the way a science progresses can be shown as open-ended
pre-science normal science crisis revolution new normal science
new crisis
The disorganised and diverse activity that precedes the formation of science
eventually becomes structured and directed when a single paradigm becom
adhered to by a scientific community (dogma as the terms of acceptance).

The history of Galileo &

Newton

Kuhn found that Aristotles theory of motion within the context of Newtoni
mechanics, at first sight seemed to be both simple-minded and false.
But, if grasped the point, then Aristotle motion meant different from what
meant for Newton. Here the Aristotelian system made coherent sense.
Thus, Aristotles science could not be compared directly with Newtonian
science, the two systems were quite incomparable and incommensurable
theoretical world
The change from the Aristotelian view to the Newtonian view could not be
seen in evolutionary terms (Newtonian mechanics corrected the mistakes o
Aristotles physics an provided a more complete and sophisticated accoun
but Newtons science was a revolutionary new way of investigating the
new world.

The structure of the scientific

revolutions cont
A paradigm is made up of the general theoretical assumptions and laws
and the
techniques for their application that the members of a particular
scientific adopt.
Workers within a paradigm (such as Newtonian mechanics, wave optics
or a bulk
of scientific work done, accepted by its practitioners of a system of
concepts,
methods and assumptions a type of instrumentation, a metaphysical
speculation, a textbook) called as normal science.
Normal scientists will articulate and develop the paradigm in an attempt
to
account for the behaviour of the real world through the results of
experimentation.
During this attempt, normal scientists will experience difficulties and
encounter
falsifications. If these difficulties get out of hand, a crisis state develops.
A crisis is resolved when an entirely new paradigm emerges and attract

Kuhns normal science &

revolutionary science

In addition, an account of science is influenced by the social behavior of sc

(scientific communities) because he found the disagreement between social
scientists (psychologists or sociologists) about the nature of legitimate scientific
problems and methods, as the practitioners of natural sciences fail to evoke the
controversies over fundamentals.
This behaviour is more open to charges of irrationalism and subjectivism
because these factors affect the substantive aspect of science.
Thus, the role in scientific research which called paradigms, in attempts to discover
the source of that difference between the practitioners of the natural sciences and
social scientists
This Kuhns organizational aspects include: normal science,
revolutionary science and paradigm.