Study Resource 2, Philosophy of Science

Philosophy of ScienceStudy Resource-2Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach

By Karl Popper

CHAPTER 1: CONJECTURAL KNOWLEDGE- MY SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM OF INDUCTION

Traditional philosophical problem of induction (Tr): What is the justification for the belief that future willbe largely like the past? Or perhaps, what is the justification for inductive inferences?

Assumptions in Tr:

Future will be like the past. There are deductive inferences and rules for drawing inductive

inferences.

Popper aims at putting forward the problem that he thinks lies behind thisformulation.

Part 1- The Commonsense Problem of Induction

Bucket theory of the mind/commonsense theory of knowledge: “there is nothingin our intellect which has not entered it through the senses”. (Firstformulated by Parmenides). Sense-experience is fallible but expectations andbelief in certain regularities (laws of nature, theories and others) stillexist. Why?

Common sense problem of induction- Cs: How can these expectations and beliefshave arisen?

Commonsense answer- Through repeated observations made in the past. Repeatedobservations are the genesis (origin) and justification for the expectationand belief.

Part 2- Hume’s Two Problems of Induction

Two problems raised by Hume:

HL: Are we justified in reasoning from repeated instances of which wehave experience to other instances (conclusions) of which we have noexperience? Hume’s answer: No. No matter how great the number of repetitions is.

HPS: Why do all reasonable people expect and believe then, thatinstances of which they have no experience will conform to those ofwhich they have experience? That is, why do we have expectations inwhich we have great confidence?

22-April-2015

Philosophy of ScienceStudy Resource-2

Hume’s answer: Because of custom or habit. We are conditioned byrepetitions and by mechanism of association of ideas.

Part 3- Important Consequences of Hume’s Results

Belief in irrationalist epistemology- reason plays minor role in ourunderstanding.

Russell: there is no intellectual difference between sanity andinsanity, unless we deal with Hume’s problem.

Empiricism cannot escape skepticism if induction isn’t rescued. Clash between rationality, empiricism and scientific procedures

Part 4- My Way of Approaching the Problem of Induction

Hume’s definition of logic as unsatisfactoryHume defines logic as rational mental processes and mentions validinference. In Popperian terms, the prime characteristic of science isobjectivity. Thus, he sees the need to translate all subjective orpsychological terms into objective terms.

Formalized terminologyo Belief- explanatory or test statement (singular statements

describing observable events)o Justification of belief- justification of the claim that a theory

is trueo Instances of which we have no experience- explanatory universal

theories Use of solution to HL and its transference as solution of HPS through

principle of transference: “what is true in logic is true inpsychology” The principle of transference will eliminate Hume’s irrationalism andbreak clash between logic and psychology.

By principle of transference, there is no induction in psychology too,as there is none in logic. Idea of repetition in psychology is likeoptical illusion.

Part 5- The Logical Problem of Induction: Restatement and Solution

L1: Can the claim that an explanatory universal theory is true bejustified by empirical reasons; that is, by assuming the truth ofcertain test statements or observation statements (which it may besaid, are ‘based on experience’)?Popper’s answer (same as Hume’s): No. No number of true test statementsjustify that an explanatory universal theory is true.

22-April-2015


L2: Can the claim that an explanatory universal theory is true or thatit is false be justified by empirical reasons; that is, can theassumption of the truth of test statements justify either the claimthat a universal theory is true or the claim that it is false?Popper’s answer: Yes, the assumption of truth of test statementssometimes allows us to justify the claim that an explanatory universaltheory is false.

L3: Can a preference with respect to truth or falsity, for somecompeting universal theories over others ever be justified by such‘empirical reasons’?This is the situation where we have several explanatory theories whichcompete to be solution of some problem of explanation. Once we solvethe problem of induction, then only it is possible to differentiatebetween good and bad scientific theory. Popper’s answer: Yes, sometimes if we are lucky. Test statements mayrefute some of these theories. We will prefer those whose falsityhasn’t been established.

Part 6- Comments on My Solution of the Logical Problem

The focus of his solution: The central issue of logical problem ofinduction is regarding the validity of universal laws “relative to some‘given’ test statements”. This does not deal with further questionslike the validity of the experienced instance itself i.e. how we are todecide whether test statements are true or false.

L1 is the objective form of problem of induction. We shift from futuresingular instances (of which we have no experience) to universal lawsor theories. Why?

o From logical viewpoint, instances are relative to some universallaw.

o We take help of universal theories to move from instances toother instances.

o To connect problem of induction with universal laws or theoriesof science, like Russell.

When Popper says that it is not possible to move from experiencedsingular instances to a universal theory, he is saying that all laws ortheories should be considered as conjectures, as guesses. This positionhas been refuted by Gilbert Ryle who believed that there are generalestablished propositions called laws which are not mere conjectures.However, Popper believes that such a position is untenable keeping inmind the nature of scientific revolution.

o Newton’s theory once Einstein’s was proved to be true;

22-April-2015


o Discovery of deuterium and heavy water by Urey in 1931 o Commonsensical examples of inductivists:

Sun will rise and set once in 24 hours.Exception- Frozen sea and midnight sun by Pytheas ofMarseilles

All men are mortal.Exception- bacteria are not bound to die sincemultiplication by fission is not death.

Bread nourishes.Exception- Hume’s case of people eating daily bread dyingof ergotism.

L2 is mere generalization of L1 and L3 is mere alternative formulationof L2.

An answer to Russell’s question: Some of the sayings of lunatics can berefuted by experience (i.e. test statements).

Solution in tune with principle of empiricism: Principle of empiricism (weak form): Only ‘experience’ can help us tomake up our minds about the truth or falsity of factual statements.

Solution to L1, L2 and L3 fall within deductive logic. There isasymmetry between verification and falsification by experience.

# Theory of demarcation- problem of finding a criterion by which one candistinguish between statements of empirical science from non-empiricalstatements. Solution- Principle that a statement is empirical if there are finiteconjunctions of singular empirical statements (basic statements or teststatements) which contradict it.

Part 7- Preference for Theories and the Search for Truth

With respect to a set of competing theories (theories offering solution tothe same problem), we will use the critical method to choose which theory isto be considered as an explanation for the problem. This refers to the methodof trial and elimination of errors, proposing theories and submitting them tothe several tests we can design. We involve ourselves in purely deductivelogic- within which L1, L2 and L3 were put forward. Any problems which ariseregarding the specifics of the method itself when we try to apply thecritical method to the practical situations arising in science will be dealtusing methodological rules (the rules of critical discussion).

Part 8- Theoretical Preference- Theory of Corroboration

22-April-2015

Philosophy of ScienceStudy Resource-2The ability to test (testability) a theory increases and decreases with itsinformative content and therefore, with its improbability (in the sense ofprobability calculus). Thus, the better theory is the more improbable one.

Greater the informative content, the greater will be its improbability(because it will fixate on one particular thing/cause as an explanation forthe problem), and greater will be its testability (limited test cases).

Eg:

Problem statement- Under what conditions can life arise on a planet?

T1- Condition 1, 2, 3

T2- Condition 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 and 8. (greater informative content)

T2 is more improbable because it narrows down which places would actuallyhave these conditions- but also it is more testable.

There can be degrees of corroboration which will give us a concise report forevaluating the state of the critical discussion of a theory, with respect tohow it solves its problems, its degree of testability, the severity of testsits undergone and the way it has stood up to these tests. Corroboration isthus an evaluating report of the past performance which can be used tocompare between two theories with consideration of critical discussion whichincludes testing up to a certain point of time/empirical evidence. This doesnot say anything about the future performance or about the ‘reliability’ of atheory.

Part 9- Pragmatic Preference

Pr1: Upon which theory should we rely for practical action, from rationalpoint of view?

Popper- From rational point of view, we should not rely on any theory, for notheory has been shown to be true or can be shown to be true.

Pr2: Which theory should we prefer for practical action, from a rationalpoint of view?

Popper- We should prefer as basis for action the best-tested theory. There isno absolute reliance. There can be no good reasons for expecting a theory inpractice to be a successful choice.

Part 10- Background to My Restatement of Hume’s Psychological Problem ofInduction

22-April-2015

Philosophy of ScienceStudy Resource-2Induction- the formation of belief by repetition- is a myth. There is a needfor regularity which makes people seek regularities. The need to imposeregularities is based on drives or instincts. The regularities we try toimpose might be psychologically a priori but not necessarily a priori valid.Thus, expectations can arise even without or before any repetition.Expectations cannot arise in any other way than instinctually becauserepetition presupposes similarity and similarity presupposes a point of view-a theory. For this reason, Hume’s inductive theory of formation of beliefscould not be true, for logical reasons.

Only objective knowledge is criticizable. Subjective knowledge becomescriticizable only when it becomes objective. It becomes objective when we saywhat we think- even more so when we write it or print it.

In using the term ‘expectation’, we refer to settled beliefs. These settledbeliefs can be formulated into hypothesis and thus, into statements of form-‘I believe that..’. All these formulated statements can be consideredcritically. There can be fanatic acceptance of a belief to tentativeacceptance.

Part 11: Restatement of the psychological problem of induction

PS1: If we look at a theory critically, from point of view of sufficientevidence rather than any pragmatic point of view, do we have a feeling ofcomplete assurance or certainty of its truth, even with respect to the best-tested theories, such as that the sun rises every day.

Popper- No.

PS2- Are those ‘strong pragmatic beliefs’ (beliefs which have to do withchoosing between alternate action) which we all hold such as that there willbe a tomorrow, the irrational results of repetition?

Popper- No. These beliefs are partly inborn, partly modifications of inbornbeliefs resulting from method of trial and error-elimination. There isnothing irrational about pragmatic belief in the results of science.

CHAPTER 2: TWO FACES OF COMMON SENSE- AN ARGUMENT FOR COMMONSENSE REALISM ANDAGAINST COMMONSENSE THEORY OF KNWOLEDGE

Science, philosophy, rational though starts from common sense. Even thoughcommon sense is vague and insecure point to start with, we do not aim or tryto build a secure system on these foundations.

22-April-2015

Philosophy of ScienceStudy Resource-2Popper’s first thesis- Our starting point is common sense and our greatinstrument for progress is criticism. We only need competing theories to havescope for critical or rational discussion. The fundamental problem of theoryof knowledge is the clarification and investigation of this process by whichour theories may grow or progress.

Realism- Realism is essential to common sense. Common-sense distinguishesbetween appearance and reality. There can be surface reality and depthreality. There are also many sorts of things which can be real: taste andweight of foodstuffs, language, governmental decision, regularities,structures and so on.

Popper’s thesis- Realism is neither demonstrable nor refutable. No validproof of realism can exist.

Idealism says that all I experience of the external world is a dream.Even if you do anything to assert your existence, it would just be medreaming it. Thus idealism cannot be refuted. This also means thatrealism is not demonstrable because idealism can always put forwardarguments to say that the reality being referred to is only a figmentof my imagination and thus, reality cannot be demonstrated at all.

Realism is not only indemonstrable, it is also irrefutable. There canbe no describable event or conceivable experience which can be taken asan effective refutation of realism.

Arguments in favor of realism and against idealism:

Realism is part of common sense and that all the alleged argumentsagainst realism are not only philosophical in “most derogatory sense ofthis term’ but are at the same time based upon an uncritically acceptedpart of the commonsense theory of knowledge, called ‘bucket theory ofmind’.

Argument from science- Scientific realism: What we attempt in scienceis to describe and explain reality. We do so with help of conjecturaltheories- which we hope to be true but which we cannot establish ascertain or probable. The procedure adopted in science may lead tosuccess- our conjectural theories tend progressively to come nearer tothe truth- to the true descriptions of certain facts or aspects ofreality.

Argument from language- Human language is essentially descriptive andunambiguous descriptions are always realistic. It is of something- of astate of affairs which may be real or imaginary. In Tarski’s terms, ifa state of affairs is imaginary then the description is false and its

22-April-2015


negation is true description of reality. This may not be completelycertain but is a rational argument for realism.

Idealism is absurd- It is absurd to believe that my mind creates thisbeautiful world. Denial of realism amounts to megalomania.

If realism is true- then the reason for the impossibility of proving itis obvious because our subjective knowledge- our perceptual knowledge-consists of dispositions to act and thus, a kind of tentativeadaptation to reality. Thus, even though we are fallible, there seemsno point in truth or falsity of our opinions or theories if there is noreality, only dreams and illusions.

Realism is the only sensible hypothesis. Popper supports the commonsensetheory of Tarski- that truth is correspondence to facts (or with reality)- atheory is true if and only if it corresponds to the facts.

Metalanguage- Truth and falsity are essentially properties, or classes ofstatements of unambiguously formulated theories or propositions of somelanguage L1 about which we can speak quite freely in another language Lm(meta-language). Phrases of Lm which refer in some way to L1 may be calledmetalinguistic. We use metalanguage in which we can state the fact aboutwhich the statement in question speaks and in addition can also speak aboutthe statement in question.

“The phrase P of the object language is a statement corresponding to thefacts if and only if p.” – For instance, “The phrase ‘snow is white’ is trueif only and only if snow is white”. This is an objectivist or absolutistnotion of truth.

Verisimilitude- Content, truth content and falsity content

Two notions combined to form logical notion of verisimilitude: (a) The notionof truth; (b) The notion of the logical content of a statement (class of allstatements logically entailed by it- consequence class).

Truth content refers class of all true statements which follow from a givenstatements (or which belong to a given deductive system) and which are nottautological. The truth content of tautologies is zero. All other statements,including all false statements, have non-zero truth content. Falsity contentrefers to class of false statements entailed by a statements- the sub-classof its content which consists of exactly all those statements which arefalse.

22-April-2015

Philosophy of ScienceStudy Resource-2The verisimilitude of a statement increases with its truth content anddecreases with its falsity content. A theory T1 has less verisimilitude thana theory T2 if and only if:

Their truth contents and falsity contents are comparable And either:

The truth content but not the falsity content of T1 is smaller that ofT2; OR

The truth content of T1 is not greater than that of T2 but its falsitycontent is greater.

Thus, T2 is nearer to the truth than is T1 if and only if more truestatements follow from it but not more false statements or at least equallymany true statements but fewer false statements.

Theory of corroboration:

Content is the quality of a particular theory of hypothesis. A higher levelof content leads to higher level of testability. This means that there isgreater relative difference in statement from background knowledge (b). Thegreater the degree of universality or precision corresponds to greaterempirical content and therefore, greater degree of testability. Precisionrefers to level of description that is reached by the prediction ofhypothesis. Higher level of precision means finer and finer descriptions ofreality. This increases the testability by limiting the number of possibleevents which are consistent with the theory. Precision is exclusion.Universality refers to the number of classes which are derivable fromhypothetical statement. This is the phenomena used to test the hypothesis.Universality is the scope of demands hypothesis makes on reality- this willvary in levels of precision. Universality means inclusion.

Degree of corroboration (DoC): The relative tentative confirmation orconfidence in one hypothesis over another based on the performance of eachhypothesis under critical tests. Popper writes a distinct absoluteprobability calculus to eliminate contradictions and logical absurditieswhich arise in using formal probability calculus to assess the support of ahypothesis by evidence.

The idea of corroboration is central to empirical science. Scientificknowledge can never be verified, only tentatively accepted. Popper sawcorroboration of a theory or hypothesis (h) by evidence (e) as a continuumthat ranged in degrees from refutation to independence, or irrelevance tocorroboration.

22-April-2015

Philosophy of ScienceStudy Resource-2Truth and confirmation do not play any role in absolute calculus ofcorroboration.

Truth is atemporal because ‘what is true in the present was true in thepast and will be true in the future’

Corroboration is temporal because the outcome of tests is unknownbefore they are implemented: a particular test may have corroborated ahypothesis yesterday and another more severe test corroborated ittoday. Most importantly, there might be another test which refutes ittomorrow.

Corroboration formula:

The corroboration of the evidence (e) given hypothesis (h) is equal to theabsolute probability of e given h minus the absolute probability of e alonedivided by the absolute probability of e given h minus the absoluteprobability of h unified with e plus the absolute probability of e alone.

Addition of b (background knowledge):

The denominator has low significance and can be neglected. The threecomponents of corroboration are:

Theory or hypothesis (h) Evidence (e) Background knowledge (b)

A test proves its worth by maximizing the value in the numerator with respectto competing hypotheses.

Positive value of numerator: The numerator will be positive as theprobability of e becomes greater due to h relative to b. {when P (e,hb)is greater than the P (e,b)}

22-April-2015


Negative value of numerator: The numerator will be negative if theprobability of e in light of h is less than that given b alone (this isfalsification). {when P (e,b) is greater than the P(e,hb)}

Zero value: No corroboration if both probabilities are same and valueof numerator is zero. The result is tautology.

Corroboration can be accomplished if h is falsifiable (i.e. it must containtestable content different from b) and gives predictions consistent with e(i.e. demands few ad hoc hypotheses to fit the evidence).

Bucket theory of mind:

This is the commonsensical theory of mind. Our mind is a bucket which isoriginally empty or more or less so. Material enters into the bucket throughour senses and accumulates and gets digested. This is philosophically knownas tabula rasa theory of mind- mind as an empty slate upon which sensesengrave their messages. Thus, all knowledge consists of information receivedthrough our senses- through experience.

The following elements of bucket theory of mind are refuted:

Knowledge is conceived of as consisting of things or thing-likeentities in our bucket.

Knowledge is in us- it consists of information which has reached us andwhich we have managed to absorb.

There is immediate or direct knowledge.o All errors or mistaken knowledge arise from bad intellectual

digestion which adulterates the given elements of information bymisinterpreting them or wrongly linking them with other elements.

o Knowledge is essentially passively received knowledge while erroris always actively produced by us either by interfering with thegiven or by some other mismanagement- a perfect brain cannot err.

There is practical need of knowledge of higher level which goes beyondmere data or elements. We connect existing data with impending

22-April-2015


elements. The higher knowledge establishes itself by association ofideas or elements.

Ideas are associated if they occur together- association isstrengthened by repetition.

In this way, we establish expectations (if idea a is stronglyassociated with idea b, then occurrence of a arouses high expectationof b).

In this way, beliefs also emerge. True belief is belief in an unfailingassociation. Erroneous belief is belief in an association between ideaswhich, even though haven’t occurred together, are repeated togethergenerally.

This is close to empiricism of Locke, Berkeley and Hume.

Criticism of bucket theory of mind: Quest for certainty

Primarily, it is engaged in the assumption of quest for certainty. Thisquest for certainty leads us to assert that there are sense data,immediate experiences, sense impressions which are the basis of allknowledge. However, these elements do not exist at all.

Our subjective knowledge of reality consists of maturing innatedispositions. We refer the messages we receive from our environment tothe reality- these messages are decoded through a complex process.Those messages which are biologically important for us currently or inthe future are preserved, while a majority of them are ignored.

We learn to decode theses messages by trial and error elimination. Welearn to put the process of decoding in the background such that wereceive the decoded messages as given. However, most of the times,there are errors in our receivals which are corrected through complexmechanism.

The idea of a ‘given’ of true data, with attached certainty is only amistaken theory which is part of common sense.

Criticism of subjectivist theory of knowledge

Subjectivism says that science is the perfect instrument of predictionand does not reveal any standard of truth to us. That there are nohigher standards of certainty. Because there can only be subjective useof science as instruments in one’s practical pursuits. There is noobjectivity it can claim to.

Physiology (physics) says that our ‘data’- scientific is fallible andnot the standard of truth or certainty. This means that what is

22-April-2015


fallible is the data we use to predict (subjective), not the standardof truth or certainty we have.

Popper’s rectification of the commonsense theory

There is knowledge in the subjective sense, which consists ofdispositions and expectations.

There is also knowledge in objective sense, human knowledge, whichconsists in linguistically formulated expectations submitted tocritical discussion.

Commonsense theory fails to see the difference between the two abovepoints.

o Subjective knowledge is not subject to criticism. o Objective knowledge can change and grow by elimination of

linguistically formulated conjecture. Commonsense theory is only a theory of genesis of knowledge- how we

acquire knowledge passively. Seen as a theory of growth of knowledge,it is completely false.

Evolutionary Epistemology

Epistemology as prior to genetics: The logical investigations ofquestions of validity and approximation to truth are of greatestimportance for genetic, historical and psychological investigations.

Criticism of idealism: Immediacy or directness of our ideas,impressions or perceptions is the result of our biological outfit whichis well-adapted to the environment. However, this immediacy does notestablish truth or cannot be criteria for truth. This is thefundamental mistake of idealism.

Darwinismo There is an environment with certain structure. This is

empirical.o This environment changes- but not too fast for long period of

time and not too radically. This is empirical. o Organisms produce mutations over a period of time which allows it

to adjust to their environment.o This process of adjustment is a trial-and-error-elimination

method. This is the logic of situation- the a prior component ofDarwinism.

How a priori? Evolution can only occur if such a process ofadjustment is taking place.

o Descriptive and argumentative language:

22-April-2015


Linguistic formulation of theories allows us to criticizeand eliminate them without “eliminating the race whichcarries them”

Development of a conscious and systematic attitude ofcriticism towards our theories.This is the start of the method of science. Method ofscience is criticial method.

Aim of science and All Knowledge is theory-impregnated, including ourobservations

The aim of science is increase of verisimilitude. Every stage in theevolution of life and development of an organism assumes the existence ofsome knowledge in form of dispositions and expectations. The growth of alknowledge consists in the modification of previous knowledge- either in itsalteration or its large-scale projection. Some part of this previousknowledge is taken for granted which conflicts with our observations andhypotheses. There is plasticity in the organism for modifications of thisinborn knowledge.

Growth of knowledge:

All acquired knowledge, all learning, consists of the modification(possibly the rejection) of some form of knowledge or disposition,which was there previously; and in the last instance, of inborndispositions.

All growth of knowledge consists in the improvement of existingknowledge which is changed in the hope of approaching nearer to thetruth.

All our dispositions are adjustments to the slowly changing environmentalconditions- for this reason, they are theory-impregnated (assuming a broaddefinition of ‘theory’).

Knowledge in objective sense:

The direct or immediate observational experiences cannot be our startingpoint. Three worlds:

World 1- Physical world World 2- World of our conscious experiences- Subjective knowledge-

organismic knowledgeConsisting of dispositions of organisms

22-April-2015


World 3- world of the logical contents of the book, libraries, computermemories and so on- Objective knowledge- knowledge in the objectivesenseLogical content of our theories, conjectures, guesses- logical contentof our genetic code. Eg: Theories published in journals and books andstored in libraries; discussions of such theories; difficulties orproblems pointed out in connection with such theories and so on.

On World 3:

Problems in World 3 can be discovered before they are discovered andbecome conscious of in World 2.

World 3 is autonomous in a sense. As we make geographical discoveringin world 1, we make theoretical discoveries in world 3.

Main thesis- Our conscious subjective knowledge/world 2 depends upon world3/linguistically formulated theories. Popper says that the full consciousness ofthe self is dependent upon world 3. We derive our immediate self-consciousness and knowledge of self through theory of body and itscontinued existence in sleep, theories of time (linearity) and othersaccessible in world 3. These world 3 elements decide our expectations-of waking up after sleeping tonight. For this reason, Popper points outthat “full consciousness of self depends upon all these (world 3)theories” and adds that animals have capacity for feelings, memory,sensations and therefore, of consciousness but they do not possess thefull consciousness of self which is the result of human language anddevelopment of human world 3.

Method of Science:

“The method of science is the method of bold conjectures and ingeniousand severe attempts to refute them.”

o Bold conjecture: A theory with a great content- greater than thetheory which will be superseded by it.

The main verification for increase in verisimilitude is not theincrease in truth content alone. For the truth content will increasewith the increase in content anyway. The point is to verify if thefalse content has increased or not.

One can never be sure that a theory is completely devoid of increase infalse content. We can only search for falsity content of our besttheory by trying to refute it- by testing it severely in the light ofour objective knowledge.

22-April-2015


A theory may be false even if it passes all the tests. But if it passesall the tests, then we can conjecture that the theory has greater truthcontent than its predecessor and may have no greater falsity content.If the theory also stands to the tests in fields where its predecessorhad failed, then we can say that the new theory is a betterapproximation to truth than the old theory.

Science: The Growth of Knowledge through Criticism and Inventiveness

Science replaces the elimination of error in violent struggle for life bynon-violent rational criticism- this allows us to replace killing of world 1and intimidation of world 2 by impersonal arguments of world 3.

Difference between commonsense theory and Popper’s critical standpoint

Early philosophers Critical (Popper)1 Starting point is decisively

important. Must not fallinto error in the verystart.

Starting point is notdecisively importantbecause it can becriticized and correctedlike everything else.

2 Starting point should betrue and certain.

No way to find such asecure starting point.

3 Found in personal experienceof self (subjectivism) orpure description of behavior(objectivism).

Not found in eithersubjectivism orobjectivism. Best to startwith both and to criticizeboth.

4 By accepting eithersubjectivism or objectivism,commonsense theory ofknowledge arises. Thistheory is the weakest pointof commonsense.

We should start fromcommon sense and becritical of it.

5 We can have the most certainknowledge only aboutourselves and ourobservational or perceptualexperiences.

All our knowledge istheory-impregnated and allare also conjectural innature.

6 Our clear and distinctsensations or sense data canbe the hard facts on whichour knowledge is based.Direct or immediateexperiences cannot be false.

All knowledge is theory-impregnated. Thefoundation can be improvedby critical method and nottaking any data forgranted.

22-April-2015

Philosophy of ScienceStudy Resource-27 This is the clear result of

commonsense theory ofknowledge.

Commonsense theory doesnot look at indirect andconjectural character ofknowledge. Our senseorgans are also theory-impregnated and open toerror.

8 Realism of common sensetheory leads toepistemological idealism oroperationalism.

Even realism and itsbiological theory ofknowledge are twoconjectures. Realism is abetter conjecture thanidealism.

9 Commonsense disprovesitself- starting fromrealism and ending insubjectivism.

Commonsense theory isself-contradictory. Thisdoes not affect thecommonsense theory ofworld- which is, realism.

So, the commonsense theory of world- realism can be preserved while theepistemological commonsense theory (bucket theory of mind) can be given updue to its self-contradictory nature.

CHAPTER 3: EPISTEMOLOGY WITHOUT A KNOWING SUBJECT: THEORY OF SCIENTIFICKNOWLEDGE

Part 1: Three Theses on Epistemology and the Third World

World of physical objects or of physical states The world of states of consciousness or of mental states or behavioral

dispositions to act The world of objective contents of thought- especially, of scientific

and poetic thoughts and of works of art.

Popper’s third world resembles Frege’s objective contents of thought. Thoughit might have similarities, it differs from the following three radically:

Plato’s Theory of Forms or Ideas Hegel’s Objective Spirit Bolzano’s theory of universe of propositions-in-themselves and of

truths-in-themselves

In comparison to ‘belief philosophers’ like Hume, Descartes, Locke, Kant,Berkeley and Russell are concerned with our subjective belief and their

22-April-2015

Philosophy of ScienceStudy Resource-2source, Popper says that our problem is to find bolder theories wherecritical preference counts, not belief.

Constituents of third world:

Theoretical systems Problems Problem situations Critical arguments: most important Content of journals, books and libraries

Argument for the independent existence of third world:

Two thought experiments:

All machines and tools are destroyed- also our subjective learning,including our subjective knwoledge of machines and tools and how to usethem. Libraries and our capacity to learn from them survive. The worldmay get going in this case.

Machine and tools are destroyed and our subjective learning, includingour subjective knowledge of machines and tools and how to use them.But- all libraries are also destroyed. Here, our capacity to learn frombooks become useless.

Here, the third world is retained in first case and not in the second. Thisshows the reality, significance and autonomy of third world- also its effecton first and second world.

Three Theses of Theory of Scientific Knowledge:

1st thesis- Irrelevance of traditional epistemologyTraditional epistemology has studied knowledge or thought only in asubjective sense- with ordinary use of words like- ‘I know.’ Or ‘I amthinking’. This leads only to the study of second world, which is theworld of subjects. Popper introduces the existence of two different senses of knowledge orthought:

o Knowledge or thought in the subjective sense: state of mind orconsciousness or disposition to behave or react;

o Knowledge or thought in an objective sense: theories, argumentsand problems.

22-April-2015


Knowledge in objective sense does not depend on anybody’s belief ordisposition to act or to assert. Knowledge in objective sense isknowledge without a knower: it is knowledge without a knowing subject.

2nd thesis- What is Relevant For Epistemology Study of scientific problems and problem situations, of scientificconjectures, of scientific discussions, of critical arguments, of therole played by evidence in arguments and thus, of scientific journalsand books, of experiments and their evaluation in scientific arguments-thus, the study of largely autonomous third world of objectiveknowledge.

3rd thesis- Objectivist epistemology studying the third world can helpus to know about the second world of subjective consciousness(especially, subjective thought processes of scientists) but the secondworld does not play a major role in unraveling the third world

Three supporting theses for the above three main ones:

Third world is a natural product of the human animal, comparable to aspider’s web.

Third world is largely autonomous, even though we constantly act uponit and are acted upon by it. It is our product and has a strongfeedback effect on us.

Through this interaction between us and the third world, the objectiveknowledge grows. There is close analogy between growth of knowledge andof biological growth, that is, evolution of plants and animals.

A Biological Approach to the Third World

Attempt to defend the existence of an autonomous third world usingevolutionary or biological argument

Biologists study the behavior of animals but also: non-livingstructures that animals produce like spider’s web, nests of wasps andants, beaver dams and others.

Two categories of problems arising from study of structures- relatedto:

o Act of production- methods used by animals, the way animalsbehave when they are constructing the structures

o Structure themselves- chemistry of materials used in thestructure, geometrical and physical properties, evolutionarychanges depending on environmental conditions. Understandingstructures from viewpoint of biological functions.

22-April-2015


There is a feedback relation between these two categories. The problemsof the first category are contained within and are suggested by theproblems of second category itself. The only presupposition that thefirst category puts forward is that these structures are produced bysome animals. This relationship can be applied to logic and science aswell.

Three epistemological theses on relation between these two categories: Importance of the distinction between the two categories- We should be

aware of the distinction between problems connected with our personalcontributions to the production of scientific knowledge on one hand andthe problems connected with the structure of various products likescientific theories and arguments on the other.

The second category concerned with the products-in-themselves is moreimportant than the first category concerning problems of production-Study of products is more important than the study of production, evenfor understanding of production and the methods.

Problems of second category are basic for understanding the productionproblems: we can learn about production behavior by studying theproducts themselves- We can learn about the methodology and heuristicsand even the psychology of research by studying the theories and thearguments put forward or against them. This cannot be done throughbehaviorist, psychological or sociological approach.

Objectivity and Autonomy of the Third World

The mistaken subjective approach to knowledge arises in believing that aproduct is nothing without the subject to utilize it. For instance, a book isonly a book when it has been really understood- otherwise it is just paper.

Reasons against this subjective view:

A wasps’ nest is a wasps’ nest even after it has been deserted. A bookis a book even if it has never been read.

The product might not be produced by a human at all. For instance, aseries of books of logarithms produced by a computer.

These works together form part of objective knowledge.

What can become part of third world? What makes these works objective knowledge isthe abstract- the potential of the product to be understood even though thisis never actualized. This can be understood through the following scenario:After the human race perished, some books or libraries may be found by some

22-April-2015

Philosophy of ScienceStudy Resource-2civilized successors and the books may be deciphered. Thus, in order tobelong to the third world of objective knowledge, a work should be capable ofbeing grasped by somebody.

Metaphysical problem with third world and solution of biological analogue: Some might have ametaphysical issue with existence of the third world. This can be resolvedthrough biological analogue in realm of birds’ nests. I got a bird house forbirds- this is a human product, not a bird’s- as a logarithm could be acomputer’s product and not human’s. In the world of birds, it is part of theobjective problem situation and an objective opportunity. Even though it wasnever used, it is a bird house. The adequacy of the box is an objectivequestion and its use is partially accidental. This is the case with mostecological niches. They are potentialities and can be studied in an objectiveway in this manner.

Nature of the products of third world: Language is also an unintended by-product ofactions which were directed at other aims. The aim and structure of animalsand men is not given but develops with the help of feedback mechanism out ofearlier aims and out of the results which were or were not aimed at.

Language, criticism and the third world

The higher functions of human language are the most important of humancreations. The two lower functions of language shared by humans and animalsare self-expression and signaling. They have two higher functions:descriptive function and argumentative function. The descriptive functionleads to emergence of the regulative idea of truth- a description of whatfits the facts. The other regulative ideas are content, truth content andverisimilitude. The argumentative function of human language presupposes thedescriptive function: arguments are fundamentally about description- theycriticize descriptions from point of view of the regulative ideas of truth,content and verisimilitude. Criticism becomes the main instrument for furthergrowth such that logic can be seen as organon of criticism. The autonomousworld of higher functions of language is the world of science. We use theschema of error-elimination and of systematic rational criticism for thesearch of truth and content. The scheme of EE and rational criticism gives arational description of our self-transcendence by means of selection andrational criticism.

Historical remarks: Plato, Hegel and Freud

PLATO: AN ESSENTIALIST THIRD-WORLD

22-April-2015


PLATO POPPERDiscovered the third worldand also part of theinfluence or feedback of thethird world upon us.Third world divine in natureand unchanging.

Third world not divine innature. It is manmade andchanging.

Contains only true. Contains both true and falsetheories, especially openconjectures, problems andrefutations.

Theory of ultimateexplanations: Third world ofForms or Ideas gives ultimateexplanations- explanation ofessences. Here, the explicans isneither capable or in need offurther explanation.

We are only concerned withtheories, truth- argument.Those who think that conceptsand conceptual systems arecomparable to theories andtheoretical systems, thenthey are mistaken by Plato’smain error. Concepts are means offormulating theories andwhile their role isimportant, they can also bereplaced by other concepts.

HEGEL:

Platonist whose world of Ideas was changing and evolving. Hegel’s Ideaswere conscious phenomena: thoughts thinking themselves and inhabitingsome kind of mind or Spirit and together with this Spirit, they werechanging or evolving.

The only similarity between Hegel and Popper: Hegel’s “ObjectiveSpirit” and “Absolute Spirit” are subject to change.

HEGEL POPPERObjective spirit consistingof artistic creation andabsolute spirit consisting ofphilosophy contain humanproduction but man is notcreative. It is divine self-consciousness of the universethat moves man. This is thetheological background on

There is individual creativeelement, relation of give andtake between man and hiswork.

22-April-2015

Philosophy of ScienceStudy Resource-2which he works.Hegel has a dialectic. Popper’s schema:

P1 TT EE P2Problem 1 Tentative Theory Error Elimination Problem 2His schema works througherror elimination and onscientific level throughconscious criticism under theregulative idea of the searchfor truth. Criticism refersto the process of search forcontradictions and in theirelimination.

Hegel is a relativist. Hedoes not see our task assearch for contradictions. Hesees contradictory theoriesas being as good as non-contradictory ones.

The aim of science isverisimilitude.

Spirit is personalized into adivine consciousness. Ideasinhabit it as human ideasinhabit human consciousness.

BOLZANO AND FREGE

Popper believes that his theory is closer to Frege’s than to Plato’s orHegel’s.

Logic and Biology of Discovery

Epistemology is the theory of growth of knowledge. It is the theory ofproblem-solving, that is, of constructing, critically discussing,evaluating and critically testing competing conjectural theories.

The evaluation or appraisal of competing theories is partly a priori totesting and partly a posteriori to testing.

Prior to testing: empirical content of the theory closely related tothe virtual explanatory power- its power to solve pre-existingproblems- those problems which give rise to the theory and with respectto which these theories are competing. Content and virtual explanatorypowers are the most important regulative ideas for the a prioriappraisal of theories. They are closely related to their degree oftestability.

22-April-2015


Posterior to testing: truth or verisimilitude is the most importantconcept in a posteriori appraisal. Verisimilitude is based on theregulative idea of truth content- on the idea of amount of interestingand important true consequences of a theory. Therefore, a tautology haszero truth content and zero verisimilitude. It has probability of one.Content and testability and verisimilitude can be measured byimprobability.

A posterior evaluation of a theory depends entirely upon the way itstands up to severe tests. These severe tests in turn presuppose a highdegree of a priori testability or content. Thus, a posteriorievaluation of theory depends upon it’s a priori value. Theories whichare a priori uninteresting need not be tested because their low degreeof testability excludes a priori the possibility that they may besubjected to a significant and interesting tests.

Biological analogue: animals and plants are problem solvers whotentatively solve their problem through method of competitive tentativesolutions and elimination of error. Sense organs also incorporatetheory-like expectation such that they are prepared to react to certainselected environmental events- to those events which they expect andonly to those events.

Those theories which take sense perception as the given or data fromwhich our theory has to be constructed are pre-Darwinian. They do nottake into account the fact that the data are adaptive reactions andtherefore, interpretations which incorporate theories and prejudicesand which are like theories also impregnated with conjecturalexpectations- there is no pure perception, no pure datum- there can beno pure observational language, since all languages are impregnatedwith theories and myths.

Thus, life in itself proceeds like a scientific discovery from the oldproblems to new ones. This process of invention and selection containsa rational theory of emergence: P1 TT EE P2

Discovery, Humanism and Self-Transcendence

The third world, the world of objective knowledge is man-made. Thisworld exists to a large extent autonomously- it generates its ownproblems, especially those connected with methods of growth and itsimpact upon us is greater than the impact any one of us can have on it.

We owe our rationality to the third world. Our subjective mind, the practice ofcritical and self-critical ways of thinking and the correspondingdispositions.

22-April-2015


The relation between ourselves and our work is also of great importance.Everything depends upon the give and take between ourselves and ourwork. This interaction between our actions and their results iscritical to our life, evolution and mental growth. In this manner, weconstantly transcend ourselves, our talents, our gifts.

Second world becomes the link between the first and third world- allour actions in the first world are influenced by our second-world graspof the third world.

CHAPTER 4: ON THE THEORY OF THE OBJECTIVE MIND

The relation between the three worlds:

Second world is the mediator between the first and the third world- themind can be linked with the objects of both the first world and thethird world. The mind establishes an indirect link between the firstand third world.

The third world influences the first world through its invention oftechnology. The consequences of these technologies affect the firstworld. It is possible that originally, the possibilities of technologyand its benefits were unknown and thus, were potential and incidental.

22-April-2015


The second world grasps the third world- in the sense that it graspsthe objective thought contents.

Language:

Human language belongs to all the three worlds. In the first world, itrefers to the physical actions and physical symbols. In the secondworld, it refers to the subjective or psychological state. In the thirdworld, the prime linguistic entities are theories or propositions orstatements.

Stoics made the distinction between the objective logical content ofwhat we are saying and the objects about which we are speaking. Theseobjects can belong to any of the three worlds.

Third-world as a man-made product:

There can be broadly two groups of philosophers:o Autonomous third world which is considered eternal and divine:

Plato Supported by eternal verities: a proposition is true or

false timelessly. These were there before man arrived andtherefore, aren’t manmade.

o Language and what it expresses and communicated is manmade- theysee everything linguistic as a part of the first and secondworlds and they reject that any third world exists: Locke, Mill,Collingwood, Dilthey

Agree that there are eternal verities which are not manmadebut these eternal verities are not real.

Popper introduces a third position: it is possible to accept thereality or the autonomy of the third world and at the same time, admitthat the third world originated as a product of human activity.

Popper’s position is supported by the effect that the third world hason first world mediated through the second world. Eg: electrical powertransmission or atomic theory.

The third world is product of men- unplanned product of human actions.We come across problems which are not produced by us but onlydiscovered. In trying to resolve these problems, we invent new theorieswhich are product of our critical and creative thinking.

The ontological status of the third world is autonomous in the sensethat it is not dependent on its makers.

22-April-2015


Feedback mechanism: The growth in 3rd world is due to the feedbackmechanism between the three worlds such that new problems can always bediscovered opening scope for original and creative work.

Understanding: Popper’s contribution to the theory of understanding(hermeneutics)

o It is the understanding of the objects belonging to the thirdworld which constituted the central problem of humanities. Thoseunderstandings which belong to objects of second world are dealtwith in psychology.

o Interpretation must be distinguished from the outcome of theseactivities, interpretation. Interpretation can also be a third-world object, especially a theory.

o Every interpretation is a kind of theory which is anchored inother theories and in other third-world objects.

o Three theses concerning subjective act of understanding: Every subjective act of understanding is largely anchored

in the third world. Almost all important remarks which can be made about such

an act consist in pointing out its relation to the third-world object.

Such an act consists in the main of operations with third-world objects: we operate with these objects almost as ifthey were physical objects.

o These three theses can be applied to any subjective act ofknowledge. All important things we can say about an act ofknowledge consists in pointing out the third world objects of theact- the theory or proposition- and its relation to other third-world objects like arguments bearing on the problem and theobjects known.

CHAPTER 5: THE AIM OF SCIENCE

Source: Ratio, Volume 1, Dec 1957

Is there an aim to science? While different scientists have different aims intheir endeavors and science itself (if one may take the liberty of using sucha phrase) has no inherent aims, it is evident that when we talk aboutscience, we are hinting at that which characterizes scientific activity.Scientific activity is generally considered rational activity and since arational activity does have some aim, it is possible to say that the attemptto find the aim of science is not completely futile.

22-April-2015

Philosophy of ScienceStudy Resource-2Aim of science as finding satisfactory explanation: There is a state ofaffairs in need of an explanation (the explicandum). A set of statements bywhich one describes the explicandum is called the explicans of theexplicandum. The aim of science is to find satisfactory explanation of that whichneeds to be explained.

The explicandum- that which is to be explained- is known to be true or isassumed to be so known. Completely imaginary state of affairs like flyingsaucers are not considered as eligible for explanation- what is eligible arethe reports of flying saucers- however, once it is clear that flying saucersactually exist, there won’t be any need for an explanation of the reports.The explicans will have to be found out. Thus, scientific explanation is theexplanation of the known by the unknown.

What does it mean for an explanation to be satisfactory?

The explicans must entrail the explicandum. The explicans ought to be true. Though it might not be known to be

generally true, it must not be known to be false under criticalexamination. When it is not known to be true, there must be independentevidence in its favor. It must be capable of being tested independently.There are degrees of satisfactoriness. The greater the severity ofindependent tests it survives, the more satisfactory the explanationwill be considered to be.

# Explicandum- That which is to be explained + Explicans- The explanation

Independent vs ad hoc & circular: Popper understands ‘independent’ incontrast to the opposites ‘ad hoc’ and in severe cases, ‘circular’.

Circularity: Cases where the explanation (explicandum) known to be trueis in used as an explanation (explicans) of itself.

Popper uses the example of roughness of the sea on at a particular timeas being caused due to anger of Neptune where the explanation given tosupport the claim that the sea is rough because Neptune is angry is tocircularly justify that the claim stands precisely because the sea isrough whenever Neptune is angry.

Ad hoc: An explanation is not ad hoc when the content is rich.o Testable consequences- It must have a diverse set of testable

consequences. These testable consequences must be different fromthe explanation itself and are the independent tests andevidence.

22-April-2015


However, this alone will not ensure satisfactoriness because wecould have ad hoc explanations even though it has testableconsequences.

o Universal statements & laws of nature- In using universalstatement, we see the explicandum as ‘an instance of reproducibleeffect’ (193). This is only true if we take into considerationuniversally testable laws- that is, those laws which arefalsifiable.

Thus, an explanation is satisfactory depending on its testable andfalsifiable universal laws and initial conditions.

Reaching highest degree of satisfactory explanation: The greater theexplanation ranks in the following characteristics, the more satisfactory itis: testability, content, simplicity, universality and precision. If the aimof science is to find explanation, then it must also find explanation forpre-existent explanations like laws of nature, thus constantly renewingitself.

Ultimate explanation: This process of continually renewing and bettering theexplanations will resume until we reach an ultimate explanation- that needsno more explanation and is not even capable of being given an explanation.But can there be ultimate explanations?

Modified Essentialism:

Essentialism says that science must seek ultimate explanations in termsof essences. That is, if I can explain the behavior of a thing in termsof its essence- of its essential properties then no further questionscan be raised and none need to be raised. For instance, Descartesbelieves the essence of physical body to be extension and believed thathe had explained physics through this. In the same way, some Newtonianswho followed Roger Cotes believes that the essence of matter was itsinertia and its power to attract other matter and thus, Newton’s theorycould be derived from and ultimately explained by these essentialproperties of all matter.

Criticism: The critics of essentialism have been instrumentalists whohave said that scientific theories are nothing but instruments forprediction, without any explanatory power.

Modified essentialism: Popper puts forward a third possibility ofmodified essentialism-

o Rejection of idea of ultimate explanation- every explanation maybe further explained by a theory or a conjecture of a higher

22-April-2015


degree of universality. There can be no self-explanatorydescription of an essence.

o Rejection of all what-is questions: which ask- what is theessence or true nature. We have to give up the idea that there isan essence or an inherent nature or principle in every singlething which is the necessary cause of what it is.

o Animism: Give up the view that it is the essential propertiesinherent in each individual or singular thing that can explainthe behavior of the object. This does not answer why differentthings behave in different manners.

Explanations must be based on universal laws of nature which wouldexplain the regularities or similarities of individual things orsingular facts and events. There laws are not inherent in the things.They are conceived as conjectural descriptions of the structuralproperties of nature- of our world. However, we cannot describe anultimate essence of the world through universal laws.

Our theories must be universal- it must make assertions about thespatio-temporal regions of the world- that is, about the structural andrelational properties of our world. The properties which are describedby the explanatory theory must be deeper than those which are to beexplained. Here, depth refers to rich content and certain coherence orcompactness of the state of affairs described.

Problem of depth: Correction of older theories through explanation of newtheories marks the depth of a theory (sufficient but not necessary condition)

o Newton’s theory with Kepler’s and Galileo’s: Newton’s dynamics unified Galileo’s terrestrial and Kepler’s

celestial physics Some have said that we can deduce Newton’s theory from the laws of

Kepler’s and Galileo’s. However, logically speaking, Newton’s theorycontradicts both Galileo’s and Kepler’s. Thus, it is impossible toderive Newton’s theory from Galileo’s or Kepler’s. Why not? Becausewe cannot proceed from consistent premises to a conclusion whichformally contradicts the premises one starts with. This is a verystrong argument against induction as well.

Contradiction between Newton’s theory with Galileo’s and Kepler’s:GALILEO Galileo: a thrown stone or a projectile moves in a parabola,

except in case of free vertical fall when it moves withconstant acceleration in a straight line.

Newton: Both the above are false for two following reasons-

22-April-2015


o Path of a long-range projectile such as inter-continental missile will not be parabolic but elliptic.It becomes a parabola only if the distance of the flightof the projectile is negligible compared with radius ofthe earth. For short throws, a parabola is an excellentapproximation. We cannot deduce the parabolic track fromNewton’s theory unless we add a false initial conditionthat the radius of the earth is infinite.

o Galileo: There is constant acceleration. Newton: The acceleration of free-falling bodies is neverconstant. It increases during the fall because the bodyis approaching nearer to the center of attraction. We can obtain Galileo’s theory from Newton’s theory ifwe introduce the false assumption that the radius ofearth is infinite.

KEPLER Newton: In Newton’s theory, Kepler’s laws are only

approximately valid- that is, strictly invalid when we takeinto account the mutual attraction between the planets. EvenKepler’s third law cannot be more than an approximation exceptin special cases where the masses of the planets are equal orif unequal, negligible as compared with mass of the sun. This contradicts Newton’s law in the same way Galileo’s does.

It is only after we possess Newton’s theory can we find out whetherand in what sense, the older theories of Galileo and Kepler areapproximations to it. There is no logical step from these theoriesto Newton’s dynamics.

Newton’s theory unified Galileo’s and Kepler’s. Apart from being amere conjunction of these theories, it corrects them whileexplaining them.

o When is a theory deeper than the other one? When it has successfullyexplained the older theories by correcting them. The demand that a newtheory should contain the older ones approximately is the principle ofcorrespondence.

o This demand is sufficient condition of depth but not a necessarycondition. Why not? Because we can see that Maxwell’s electromagnetic wavetheory did not correct Fresnel’s wave theory of light.

Aim of science

To find satisfactory explanations which has following characteristics:o Not ad hoc

22-April-2015


o Has independent evidenceo Stands to severe tests

There is no use of metaphysical realism in this task.

APPENDIX 1: THE BUCKET AND THE SEARCHLIGHT- TWO THEORIES OF KNOWLEDGE

Part 1- Exposition of the ‘bucket theory of science/mind’

Sense experiences are the starting point of any knowledge about theworld. This is based on the doctrine that our knowledge/experienceconsists of:

o Naïve empiricism: Accumulated perception o Bacon and more radically, Kant: Assimilated, sorted and

classified perceptions The mind resembles a container- a kind of bucket- where perceptions and

knowledge accumulate. True knowledge is pure knowledge, free ofprejudices that we are prone to mix with our perceptions. Error resultswhen we make such additions interfering with the process ofaccumulating knowledge.

The perceptions are the raw material which flows from outside of thebucket where it is processed and results in knowledge.

Popper- This does not adequately picture the actual process ofacquiring experience, especially methods used in research anddiscovery. Science is impossible without experience but perceptions arenot the raw material. The explanations in bucket theory remain only at the level of coveringthe empirical instances, at some level, becoming circular. Popperagrees with the idea of explanations which transcend the empiricalinstances which are only the starting point and can be independentlytested to come up with hypothesis.

Part 2- Role of observation in science

In science, observations play a critical role over perceptions. Inobservation, we play an active part.

Definition of observation: Observation is a perception which is plannedand prepared. We do not ‘have’ an observation (like ‘have’ a senseexperience) but we ‘make’ an observation. An observation is preceded bya particular interest, question or problem- by something theoretical.

Every observation is preceded by a problem, a hypothesis (of the form‘Is this so? Yes or no?’). Since observation is based on our interestit is very selective and presupposes a sort of principle of selection.

22-April-2015

Philosophy of ScienceStudy Resource-2Part 3- Expectation and process of learning from disappointed expectation

All living things react to certain stimuli. These reactions arespecific- for each organism the number of possible reactions arelimited. That is, at a level, every organism possesses a certain innateset of possible reactions or certain disposition to react in this orthat way. This set of dispositions may change with advancing age of theorganism or it could remain constant. At any point in the life of theorganism, it is invested with a set of possibilities and dispositionsto react- this set can be called the (momentary) inner state.

An organism ‘learns from experience’ only if its dispositions to reactchange in the course of time and if such a change is dependent on twofactors: change in state of the organism and changing state of theexternal environment. Thus, in contrast to the bucket theory idea thata change or modification in the dispositions to react is accumulationof memory traces, left over by past perceptions, science holds that thelearning process is a certain kind of change that occurs in theorganism.

Expectation- Expectation is the disposition to react or as apreparation for a reaction, adapted to a state of environment yet tocome. We generally become conscious of our expectations only when theyare disappointment, due to their being not fulfilled. For instance, ifI encounter an unexpected step in my path, it is the unexpectedness ofthe step which makes me conscious of the fact that I expected toencounter an even surface. Disappointments force us to correct our systemof expectations. The process of learning consists in such corrections- that is, inelimination of certain (disappointed) expectations.

Part4- Horizon of expectations as frame of reference and birth of explanation An observation is based on a system of expectations. The observation

either confirms or refutes the expectation. In every pre-scientific or scientific development, there is a center

which Popper calls the ‘horizon of expectations’. This is the sum totalof our expectation- subconscious and consciousness. Biologicalorganisms have expectations depending on their level of complexity:animals and babies have horizons of expectations on a lower level ofconsciousness than a scientist whose expectations are linguisticallyformulated theories or hypotheses.

A horizon of expectation is our frame of reference consisting ofvarying content at different degrees of consciousness.

22-April-2015


Explanation: Our observations (presupposing a series of expectations) results in anexplanation of the observed phenomena. This explanation transforms ourhorizon of expectation. Certain parts of it could be destroyed whileothers will be modified and appropriated into a new horizon ofexpectations in line with the explanation we arrive at.

Process by which explanation comes to be:

The question: ‘What comes first, the hypothesis (H) or the observation(O)?’ is like the question- ‘What comes first, the hen (H) or the egg(O)?’

o The bucket theory says that observation precedes hypothesis, likethe primitive form of an egg (O) precedes the hen (H). Hypothesisis said to arise from observations by generalization, associationor classification.

o Popper’s Searchlight theory: The hypothesis (expectation ortheory) precedes an observation. The hypothesis tells us where todirect our attention and becomes our guide, leading toobservational results.

Searchlight theory: (in contrast to the bucket theory)o Observations are secondary to hypotheses.

22-April-2015

Horizon of Expectationsabout the Observed

Phenomena (a tentativehypothesis)

Accompanied By

Will to Observe (to Come

Series of Observations

Confirms Refutes

Expectations integrated into explanation for phenomena

Certain expectations destroyed, othersreformed into explanation in


o Observations play important role as tests which a hypothesis mustgo through. Observation is part of critical examination.

o If the hypothesis doesn’t pass the examination, then it isfalsified and we have to look for new hypothesis.

o Science: “Straightforward continuation of the pre-scientificrepair work on our horizon of expectations”1.

o Every move in science presupposes assumptions and a horizon ofexpectations. The oldest scientific theories are built on pre-scientific myths and still older expectations.

o Biological analogue: Every biological organism is born with somehorizon of expectations.

At individual level- ontogenetically (origin anddevelopment of individual organism)- the foundationalhorizon of expectations is that of newborn child.

As a species- phylogenetically (relationship betweenvarious biological species on tree of evolution)-foundational horizon of expectations is that of unicellularorganisms.

o Role of critical attitude in searchlight theory: Understandingthrough history of evolution of science

Babylonians, Maoris in New Zealand: Cosmological theories-Indoctrination and Blind Following Based on myths; change only little by little based onexposition of inaccuracies when they were handed down,through misunderstanding, through creation of new myths (byprophets or poets). Main aim only to hand down thetradition authentically.

Greek: Rise of Critical Attitude The trustworthiness of the myths is questions. The questfor truth begins. Main aim is to criticize theories androle of observation. Diversions occurred in-

Anaximander: disciple of Thales Anaximenes: disciple of Anaximander

The essence of science is this critical attitude that beganin the prescientific myth-making.

Part 5- Task of science and elaboration of the theoretical aspect

Task of science: The two below are different aspects of one and thesame activity.

1 Pg 346

22-April-2015


o Theoretical: explanationo Practical: prediction and technical application

Progress of science lies in trials, elimination of errors and moretrials guided by experience acquired in course of the previous trialsand errors. No theory can be regarded as absolutely certain- everytheory can become problematic, regardless of the level of itscorroboration. “It is through the falsification of our suppositionsthat we actually get in touch with ‘reality’.”2 The discovery andelimination of our errors, constitutes ‘positive’ experience we gainfrom reality. Science is not interested in having last word by adding supplementaryhypotheses to save a falsified theory. The point is to learn from ourexperience, that is, to learn from our mistakes. Formulating theories to show the possibility of their falsification: Inform of prohibitions (or negative existential statements) by showingthat universal statements are equivalent to negative existentialstatements. Second law of thermodynamics can be written as: “There doesnot exist a machine which is 100% efficient” (negative existentialstatement). Thus, all universal laws can be seen as prohibitions. Theseprohibitions are only for technicians and not for the scientists. Theprohibitions are challenges to testify and falsify.

Theoretical aspect: Explanationo Logical deduction: a deduction whose conclusion is the

explicandum (a statement of the thing to be explained) and whosepremises are the explicans (a statement of explaining laws andconditions).

o Certain demands on character of explicans: that it should beintuitively grasped, should be self-evident have been abandonedin favor of other more necessary demands: that it should beindependently testable.

o Explanation is the deduction of the explicandum from the premises(called explicans).

o Example: Statement of explicandum: ‘This rat here has died recently.’Coming up with conjectural or hypothetical explanations whichcan: (1) Be formulated as explicans from which explicandum can bededuced; (2) Be independently tested.Parts of explicans: Universal laws and initial conditions

Universal law- ‘If a rat eats at least 8 grains of ratpoison, it will die in 5 minutes’

2 Pg360

22-April-2015


Initial condition- ‘This rat ate at least 8 grains of ratpoison, more than 5 minutes ago.’

Deduction- Therefore, this rat recently has died. o Structure of explanation:

Part 7o Testing: In case the universal law is questioned, then it can be

put through testing to conclude its validity. In the same way, incase the application of the universal law to the individual caseis doubted, then the concerning tests can be carried out (likechecking content of the rat’s stomach) to check the validity ofthe conclusion.

o Explicandum is the effect and the initial conditions are calledcause. They both are logically linked through universal law ortheory.

o As the degree of universality of the theory increases, it can bemore tested and thus, the range within which it can makepredictions also increases and therefore, the chances offalsifications also increases.

Part 8- Practical aspect of task of science: predication and technicalapplication

Derivation of predictions: The theory is given or assumed to be knownand so are the initial conditions. We come to the logical consequences,predictions. Prediction P takes the place of explicandum E in thestructure. The predictions can either agree or refute the observations-if it doesn’t agree, then the explicans (the explanation) is falsified.We still do not know if the initial conditions or the universal law isfalse. Both could be false too. Just because we come up with true predictions does not mean that theexplicans is valid. That is, true predictions don’t verify theexplanation. The explanation has to pass through severe tests before itcan be declared valis.

Technical application: If the task is to build a bridge, we are giventhe specifications (S) which are the customer’s requirements distinctfrom architect’s specifications. We are also given relevant physicaltheories- universal laws. Here, we replace the explicandum E with theS, the specifications to be met.

22-April-2015

Philosophy of ScienceStudy Resource-2Part 10- Example- Transition from Kepler and Galileo to Newton’s theory

Newton’s theory is not a generalization from Galileo’s and Kepler’s.They contradict his theory.Kepler and Newton

Kepler’s laws cannot be deduced from Newton’s. Kepler’s laws can only be obtained approximately from Newton’s.

Galileo and Newton Galileo’s law of free falling bodies cannot be deduced from Netwon’s

theory. It contradicts his theory.Concluding remarks

Newton’s theory cannot be a generalization obtained by induction ordeduction. It is a new hypothesis which can make way for falsificationof the old theories- by showing the domains within which Newton canyield better approximations than Galileo and Kepler.

o Kepler: Domain of theory of perturbations o Galileo: Theory of variable accelerations

If Newton’s theory had only been a generalization from Kepler’s andGalileo’s, then it would have been a circular explanation of these lawsand thus an unsatisfactory explanation. His theory opened independenttests which led to successful prediction making it better than theolder theories.

Newton’s theory is an example of an attempt to explain certain oldertheories of lower degree of universality- it leads not only to a sortof unification but to their falsifications. The older theory thus hasbeen partly successful (made way for the new theory) and also failed.

PART 11- Shift from mechanical models to abstract theory

From Descartes to Maxwell, all the newly discovered relations were explainedin terms of mechanical models through laws of push or pressure. This becamethe model for understanding in science. This was first defeated by Newton.

That the theory be independently testable was the only prime demand made on atheory. We could work with theories which were not strictly mechanical- theycould be presented diagrammatically or through ‘abstract’ mathematicaltheories.

AIM OF SCIENCE: “..It is the invention of ever new theories and the indefatigable examinationof their power to throw light on experience…the aim of science is not todiscover absolute certainty, but to discover better and better theories (orto invent more and more powerful searchlights) capable of being put to more

22-April-2015

Philosophy of ScienceStudy Resource-2and more severe tests. But this means that these theories must befalsifiable: it is through their falsification that science progresses.”

22-April-2015

Study Resource 2, Philosophy of Science

Documents

Transcript of Study Resource 2, Philosophy of Science