The questions below will provide you with a partial framework for your
investigation of the epistemology of Science, and your group’s finished project
will include written responses to all of them. These questions are
intended to inform your research; following this assignment your core
group, perhaps with the assistance of an advisor, will establish a more general
framework for understanding Science as Knowledge, using your essential
questions. Honest efforts are
required: you will be able to address some of the questions based on your prior
knowledge, but some will require serious investigation. Use all the resources available to you –
your text, teachers, the library and the web. I know for sure that your text discusses a large number of the
questions below. Start each question by
looking in the index to your text for an intro to the topic. After some questions
I have added in other sources to get you started.
1.
Working
cooperatively in your break-out group, you will research, discuss and ultimately develop
answers for the question that you have chosen. It is entirely possible that the
members of the break-out group may reach different conclusions for a particular
question-this is a benefit to you, as you then will have the opportunity to
present a variety of possibilities to your core group.
2.
Following
each of the research periods, each member of the break-out group will compose a
written exploration of
the question worked on that day. This may, and perhaps should, use point form,
or diagrams, rather than formal prose.
It will be handed in with your project.
If you are unable to fully complete a question in one period you should
complete it at home that night.
3.
Members will
then return to their core groups and share findings. Written responses may include diagrams,
charts, webs, prose, quotes or anything else that informs your answers and goes
on paper.
4.
You will
then have a period to research and develop answers to the essential
questions.
On the philosophical underpinnings of science-the
Scientific Method(s)
“I have deep faith that the principle of the universe will be
beautiful and simple.” Albert Einstein
1.
Where does induction come into the scientific method? What is the “problem of induction” according
to David Hume? What shadow does this
problem cast on the naïve scientific method we looked at in class?
2.
What is logical positivism? What is falsification? Briefly outline the philosophy of science
underpinning the theories of Karl Popper.
What did Popper have to say about Darwin’s theory of evolution? Explain
the critique’s that Popper’s students, Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend, leveled
against falsification as a description of what scientists do. (There are two very good books in the
library to help with this: Introducing
Philosophy and What is This Thing Called Science.
3.
Discuss the role of luck, inspiration and aesthetics
in the development of scientific hypotheses.
A. For a
quick initial intro to the role of luck read the poem at: http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/sample01/myrhymes/serendip.htm
B. For
inspiration and non-linear thinking consider the case of Kekule’s hypothesis
for the construction of benzene.
C. For
aesthetics start by looking at the Einstein quote above and make sure to consider
the role of Occam’s Razor.
4.
Starting with the flowchart we looked at for the naive
scientific method try to make a more sophisticated flowchart for the scientific
method that includes the results of your investigation for the questions above.
5.
Bonus: For those of you wanting to work at the most
advanced level take a look at the book The Golem: What You Should Know About
Science and read one of the case studies to see a critical analysis of how some
actual scientific studies of historical importance were actually carried
out. The chapter on relativity is
particularly relevant to this, but you should choose one that you find
interesting and accessible. Having read
your preferred chapter you should write a brief summary of it in light of some
of the points you have considered in questions 1 to 4 above.
On
the overlap between science and other epistemologies
“La mathematica e l’alfabeto nel quale Dio ha scritto l’universo.” Galileo Galilei
1.
Discuss the quote.
What does it say about the interrelationships between math, theology and
science? Where do you feel the alliances
and the conflicts among these fields lie?
You should consider some of the clashes between scientists and various
churches. Some examples of
controversial issues are/have been: heliocentrism vs. geocentrism, the Big
Bang, evolution, genetic engineering and reproductive technologies.
2.
Discuss how social sciences differ from physical
sciences: consider both subject matter and methodologies. Discuss the problem free will poses to the
social sciences, especially psychology.
Discuss the problem of historical sciences such as economics, biology,
history and cosmology with respect to the scientific method.
3.
Scientists are currently searching for
extra-terrestrial intelligence. What
impact could such a discovery have on science and on other epistemologies? Consider aesthetics, history, mathematics
and theology in particular.
4.
Discuss the relationship between science and
technology and then how technology impacts others areas of knowledge. (No real research needed here, just think
about it a bit.) Also consider the debate surrounding “scientific ethics.” Do ethics play any part in science? In technology? Should we impose ethical constraints on genetic research, medical
research or ANY research? You could
look at the role of science, scientists and technology in the development of
the atom bomb and other weapons. Bonus:
For those of you wanting to work at the most advanced level consider
scientific research on race/gender and intelligence and discuss the ethical
debate involved. (See the book The
Mismeasure of Man in our library and look online for the debate around the
book The Bell Curve.)
5.
Discuss the poem below. (You may also want to discuss the answer to question 1 in section
1 above with the people working on it.
Think “aesthetics.”)
Science! true
daughter of Old Time thou art!
Who alterest all things
with thy peering eyes.
Why preyest thou thus
upon the poet's heart,
Vulture, whose wings
are dull realities?
How should he love
thee? Or how deem thee wise,
Who wouldst not leave
him in his wandering
To seek for treasure
in the jewelled skies?
On the limits and potential limits of scientific
knowledge
“God
does not play dice.” Albert Einstein
1.
Some argue that Quantum Theory, developed early in the
twentieth century, is based on non-deterministic principles (Heisenberg’s Uncertainty
Principle). It can, however, be argued
that QT is as deterministic as other theories.
Discuss, and describe the significance of this debate in placing limits
on science.
2.
What is reductionism? What role does it play in
science? What are emergent phenomena? Can reductionism and emergence be
reconciled?
3.
According to current physics, both time travel and
travel faster than the speed of light are impossible. Can science ever really
claim that something is impossible? (You may want to talk to the folks doing question 2 in section 1
above.) What are the realist and
instrumentalist views with respect to scientific theory?
4.
If truth be told, all the fundamental theories in
Physics break down at some point. In
particular, they all break the law of causality. What is the “law of causality?”
Why is it a problem if a scientific theory breaks it? (The answers to questions 1 and 3 in this
section will provide important help in answering this one. You may want to look also at the “Cosmic
Censorship Hypothesis” and naked singularities in General Relativity.)
5.
John Horgan caused a stir in the scientific community
with the publication of his book “The End of Science” in which he argued that
science was coming to the end of the era of great discoveries. Similar predictions have been (incorrectly)
made before and Horgan acknowledges this.
Why is Horgan making this prediction?
What is his evidence? What are
some particular examples he uses where he believes that science will come to a
halt? Do you agree or disagree with
him? Why? Bonus: For those of
you wanting to work at the most advanced level choose a chapter from Horgan’s
book and do a summary of it focusing on its arguments as to why we are reaching
a limit in that area of science.