HPS200
1. Why do Krauss & Jeremijenko believe that scientists need to be persuasive?
- "Well, yeah. You're right. But persuasion, if it's effective, is really seduction, right? Because when you're persuading someone, what you're really doing is convincing them to think what you want them to think, but to be happy about it-instead of forcing them." - Being successful is not only being good but being able to persuade o Being able to communicate what they're doing o Not what you do but how you do it - Very little education on how students should communicate - "while I understand science as a sociological phenomena, I do believe in objective reality and I do believe that, ultimately, important science wins out in spite of the social constructs and the social or peer pressures to do certain things. So I think that ultimately people realize what's truly significant and recognize it, even if it takes a little bit longer because it's not presented well" - "It's the ability to make it work. If it works, then people buy into it, whether they: like it or not. - Science only proves things to be false - "The right things may .not be obvious, but the wrong things should be. And if I could just convince people of that, I think it would go a long way to getting people to have a perspective of science that is useful."
Why does Douglas believe that 'pure' science is very rare?
- "pure" science is (very) rare o special case of science without clear ethical or social implications, one that can switch rapidly to the more general case when research scientists suddenly find themselves facing social implications. - The less evidence the more values are needed directly and indirectly decide whether empirical claims are worth it
Describe the fair-share principle. Reiss & Kitcher (2009) described the fair-share principle in response to biomedical research; how might the principle be applied to environmental issues?
- A role for direct values - "at least insofar as disease problems are seen as comparably tractable, the proportions of global resources assigned to different diseases should agree with the ratios of human suffering associated with those diseases" - Promoting the common good - Thus if the disease burden associated with a form of respiratory infection is twice that of a specific type of cancer, and if there are approaches to both diseases that are roughly equally promising, then the funds assigned to the respiratory infection should be approximately twice those given to the cancer. - Preventing deaths
Describe how anthropomorphism and the naturalistic fallacy might create a vicious cycle in the human sciences (e.g. psychology). Provide an example to illustrate.
- Anthropomorphism o endowing inanimate objects with human qualities - Naturalistic Fallacy o Implying that if it's natural it's good
How might epistemic values be influenced by non-epistemic values? Illustrate with an example.
- Epistemic values end up reflecting the non-epistemic values - Non-epistemic become encoded into the constitutive features of specific theories - when non-epistemic consequences of error can be foreseen, non-epistemic values are a necessary part of scientific reasoning. - Although scientific experiments may seem to be accurate and knowledgeable, non-epistemic values come into place. Is it ethical enough to have people know o Does it support human life o Politically correct o Is it better for one person to suffer or many - Phyllis Rooney o An example of this, Rooney notes, would be the theological views on the role of randomness in the universe that underlay the Bohr-Einstein debate: The social or cultural values that shaped Bohr's or Einstein's theological views then acted as guides for epistemic choice, thus operating as epistemic values. Such nonstandard epistemic values have deeply influenced the direction of scientific thought, but they also often reflected social values, Rooney suggests, thus smuggling the non-epistemic values through the boundary.
According to Popper, many pseudosciences have three characteristics: (a) overwhelming explanatory power; (b) limitless verifications; and (c) ad hoc additions. Describe each characteristic. Why are these characteristics unscientific to Popper? Use an example to illustrate.
- Explanatory power o Explanatory power is the ability of a hypothesis or theory to effectively explain the subject matter it pertains to o opening your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. o - Limitless verification o Once youre eyes were opened you saw confirming instances everywhere o World was full of verifications of this theory o Whatever happened would confirm it - Ad hoc additions o Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers—for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by re-interpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. o ad hoc hypothesis is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified - A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is nonscientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice. - Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.
What is citizen science? How might it democratize scientific knowledge and practice?
- Giving the public science research - the collection and analysis of data relating to the natural world by members of the general public, typically as part of a collaborative project with professional scientists. - Democratizing science? o Everywhere o Anyone can participate o Because public is involved there needs to be votes on theories, what practices are worth it (indirect direct roles) ♣ Diverse views ♣ Different values coming from religious backgrounds ♣ Morals (don't have a mindset like other scientisst o Everyone has a say so must go with majority A scientifically literate citizenry: - What's the point if we become literate in science? science propaganda? o Methods when sick, making health decision o Finding the truth about the world and applying the critical thinking to the rest of the world - A) a vocabulary of basic scientific constructs (newspaper-ready) - b) an understanding of the process or nature of scientific inquiry - c) some level of understanding of the impact of science and technology
1. What does it mean for a scientific theory to be underdetermined? Imagine that you see what you think is a new planet in your telescope; how might this observation be underdetermined?
- In the philosophy of science, underdetermination refers to situations where the evidence available is insufficient to identify which belief one should hold about that evidence. - The evidence is insufficient to determine what we should believe - Seeing a new planet is an observation that nay be underdetermined o Not enough evidence o You "think" is a new planet o Could be something else o There must be more evidence to ensure that evidence is suitable enough to be proven true o Values and more evidence to fill in the gaps o Could be something else in the telescope o Demere's finding ♣ A lot of controversy because there is not anough supporting evidence ♣ Undetermined evidence ♣ Science is still in the making o Darwin's theory of keeping the fever ♣ Not enough evidence to surely confirm
Douglas argues that values should have an indirect role in science because of the need to evaluate inductive risks. What does this mean? Provide an example to illustrate.
- Indirect roles: o Values do not compete with or supplant evidence o Determine the important gaps left by evidence o More evidence making values less important - When deciding which empirical claims to make, values must take an indirect role - Sufficiency of evidence - Weighing of uncertainty and the consequences of error rather than the evaluation of intended consequences or the choices themselves o This ensures that we aren't working towards trying to prove are theories true although the outcomes are truly incorrect - Considering the consequences of error - Values are needed to decide whether available evidence is sufficient to make the empirical claim - Values weigh the importance of certainty, but not the claims itself - The more evidence the more removal of values - How much evidence needed until deciding evidence is significant - Tests: o False positive ♣ Accepting science hypothesis when it isn't true o False negativess ♣ Rejecting an experimental hypothesis when it's true o Being able to use values to weight out these costs when a choice needs to be made ♣ For example: • Effects of air pollution o False positive is that air pollutant is hazardous when it's not, leading into unnecessary harm, and potential costly regulations o False negative would lead to individuals being exposed by hazardous pollutants o Social and ethical values need to be weighed of consequences of error ♣ Helps to determine the importance of uncertainty o Cognitive values ♣ Enables to have flaws be uncovered in order to develop further ♣ Insurance policy against mistakes ♣ Helps to mitigate uncertainties in the long term
Should taxpayers' money be spent on funding pseudoscientific research to figure out if its claims are true? What would Sheldrake say about this, and would you agree?
- No, it could be going towards important diseases or finding new diseases to cure and actually good science, science that could be actually be proven where this tries to have a scientific context - Support the fair - share principle sheldrake: he would agree he believes in pseudoscience countless experiments to show that dogs and humans can communicate telepathically
1. Levi (1960) notes that there are two important characteristics of scientists: a. At least one major goal of the scientist qua scientist is to make judgments—i.e., to accept or reject hypotheses—and to justify his judgments. b. The scientific inquirer is prohibited by the canons of scientific inference from taking his attitudes, preferences, temperament, and values into account when assessing the correctness of his inferences. Provide an example that illustrates why these two facts might be in conflict.
- One scientists accept and rejects due to the evidence that justify his judgements - Other scientist is prohibited from using the values, attitudes, preferences when assessing the correctness of his inferences - Although values can prevent one from getting the answers they want there may not always be enough evidence and values need to take into place o Douglas indirect and direct values are needed to fill in missing gaps - our values can purely just be used to justify our judgements, DEMERE
Define the pessimistic meta-induction. Based on this theory, what should we think about modern science?
- Pessimistic meta-induction: o Science is wrong before, so it's probably wrong now o so many scientific theories from bygone eras have turned out to be wrong, we must assume that most of today's theories will eventually prove incorrect as well o Argument which seeks to rebut scientific realism, particularly the scientific realist's notion of epistemic optimism - Example: o Dr. Henry Cotton ♣ Lived his whole life believing removing teeth would cure patients with infections and prevent them from having infections • tonsils and sinuses and often a tonsillectomy was recommended as additional treatment ♣ We could be living believing these theories are true o Smoking cigarettes - We should rethink scientific theories
1Describe the deficit model regarding public understanding of science. Provide an example of this model in action.
- Public deficiency, scientific exterprise - a one-way, top-down communication process, in which scientists - with all the required information - filled the knowledge vacuum in the scientifically illiterate public" - a big gulf between "the educated world" and the unwashed and unlettered - Having a teacher spread knowledge to the class - Communicating to the public o Telling people the information o Contrasts with contextual model: ♣ Learning hands on ♣ Putting individuals in the situation - public understanding of science = scientific literacy
Briefly define and provide examples for the following: (a) scientific dissent; (b) pseudoscience; (c) non-science; (d) fraudulent science; (e) proto-science; and (f) anti-science.
- Scientific Dissent(Falls in between good and bad science): o Disagreements can be useful for finding problems in underlying assumptions, methodologies, and reasoning, as well as for generating and testing new ways of tackling the unknown o Peptic ulcers were believed to be caused by stress and dietary factors. The physicians Robin Warren and Barry Marshall showed in 1982 that the bacterium Helicobacter pylori was responsible, but the medical community was slow to make appropriate changes in ulcer treatment - Pseudoscience o Not related to science but tries to impose itself with science background or have a scientific meaning o Trying to create an impression that it is science o Mice transferring knowledge to mice that aren't born o Astrology - Non-science o Fields that do not focus on science o History, art, philosophy o Has no study of science - Fraudulent science o Easy science and what we want to hear instead of accepting the evidence that make it incorrect o Demere o Douglas saying our values influence our scientific research - Proto Science o New science o Not knowing where it fix o Possibly economics ♣ Statistics ♣ Experimentations - anti-science o Religious ethical values o Rejecting that science created the universe
1. Explain three reasons why some people might think that science is so special in the modern world.
- Shapes the modern world - motive force in the economy globalization - tells us about the world(Shapin) - every dollar that is invested we get more information - Shapes modern culture - Science has the power to cure sicknesses o Dr cotton and his theory o Research on cancers to ensure sicknesses could be cured o Demeres claim ♣ If it was true it would change science and our belief of when humans settled the Americas - Science has the power to support groups o Military, technology - If we didn't have science, we wouldn't be progressing - Science is so special because it could prove many things deepen our understanding this is because people like the fact that it uncovers the truth o Important enough to be taken seriously and establish values to ensure empirical claims are real claims are real ♣ Direct and indirect values in science (douglas) ♣ Reliable knowledge and it'so important that's why many values are used
Consider the completed unsubstantiated theory that most cancers can be cured by drinking more water. Name at least one epistemic value that this theory fulfills. Name at least one epistemic value that this theory does not fulfill. How do these values influence your view of the theory?
- Simple, related to knowledge o Diluting cancer and flushing them out o Dilutes chemicals in body o Removing mucous - Direct truth o Chemo to undergo o Antibiotics o Food - These values influence my view on this theory o Determining what values weigh out o How accurate this is o In the end it's simple and knowledgable water does flush out toxins but it is not powerful enough because there are antibiotics o If it's in your body water cannot clean it out
What is the demarcation problem? What principle did Popper use to solve this problem?
- The demarcation problem in the philosophy of science is about how to distinguish between science and non-science, including between science, pseudoscience, and other products of human activity, like art and literature, and beliefs - the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability o It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory—if we look for confirmations o Every 'good' scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
Why might Sandra Harding argue that diverse scientists are 'maximally objective'. Do you agree with this stance? Why or why not?
- The more different people with different backgrounds the more types of evidence you have - I agree o Many diverse sciences with different ways they apply their values and when not to apply values in science o Different types of evidence from different values
What is the precautionary principle? What does it mean to say that this principle aims to minimize false negatives? Provide an example to illustrate.
- The precautionary principle (or precautionary approach) generally defines actions on issues considered to be uncertain, - the principle that the introduction of a new product or process whose ultimate effects are disputed or unknown should be resisted. It has mainly been used to prohibit the importation of genetically modified organisms and food. - False negatives: o False negatives occur when they reject an experimental hypothesis as false and it is not - Effects are unknown - False Positive: o False positives occur when scientists accept an experimental hypothesis as true and it is not.
According to Shapin, is science special because the public overwhelmingly gives authority to scientific knowledge? Is it special because of the scientific method? Explain your answer.
- The public loves science - Shapin: o The public puts a lot of money into it o They let it have authority because they know it has shaped the modern world and is a motive force to the economy and globalization o science that drives the economy and, more pervasively, it's science that shapes our culture o There is no scientific method it is hard to determine o New Yorker piece announced, "The scientific method has come to shape our notion of progress and of modern life" ♣ The scientific method is the method that will prove something ♣ There is no consensus of what this method is but people believe science has progressed in modernity so much ♣ A "pragmatical scheme" of that seven-step method is provided, starting with "define the question," going through "analyze the data," and concluding with "publish results,"
Rupert Sheldrake insists that his theory of morphogenic resonance is just an example of scientific dissent. For example, he's conducted countless experiments to show that dogs and humans can communicate telepathically. If we assumed that these experiments are well-conducted, and the results are statistically significant, should we believe Sheldrake's hypothesis? Why or why not?
-Morphic resonance is a process whereby self-organising systems inherit a memory from previous similar systems -Idea that each species has a kind of collective memory - pseudoscience with no scientific context to back it up - no scientific evidence we may assume it's well-conducted but that would be our values - wee need to assume it is wrong
Describe the three ways that we might think of citizens as scientifically literate. In your view, is one way more important than the others? Discuss why you do or do not think so.
A scientifically literate citizenry: - What's the point if we become literate in science? science propaganda? o Methods when sick, making health decision o Finding the truth about the world and applying the critical thinking to the rest of the world - A) a vocabulary of basic scientific constructs (newspaper-ready) - b) an understanding of the process or nature of scientific inquiry - c) some level of understanding of the impact of science and technology no, the more knowledge you have in science the more you are able to find the truth and applyand share your thinking Bucchi & Nersini "promoting public participation initiatives [may be] a more subtle way of disciplining [...] citizenship to make it more suitable to comply with technoscience advancements
1. What is an epistemic value? What is a non-epistemic value? Provide two examples of each.
Epistemic Value: - Acceptable values relating to epistemic relating to knowledge - Accuracy - Approximate truth - True beliefs - Consistency - Fruitfulness - Knowledge - Related directly to knowledge - Scientist: - Kuhn o Accuracy o Consistency o Scope o Simplicity o Fruitfulness Non- Epistemic Value: - Includes social, ethical, and other values - all the "forbidden values" - Moral - Social / Political Issues - Attaining - the most funding - Personal - Political - Culture - Loyalty to teachers These values were sharply demarcated from social and ethical values, such as concern for human life, reduction of suffering, political freedoms, and social mores
Can a scientist accidentally create fraudulent science? Use an example to illustrate.
Fraudulent science: - Easy and what we want to hear when it is - truly false Yes - Values can influence a scientist to get what they want Example - Demere
Is there a difference between pseudoscience and anti-science? Use an example to illustrate.
Pseudoscience (falls under a science, bad science): - Not scientific - Trying to create the impression that it is scientific - beliefs, theories, or practices that have been or are considered scientific, but have no basis in scientific fact. This could mean they were disproved scientifically, can't be tested or lack evidence to support them. Example: - Scientific testing of astrology has been conducted, and no evidence has been found to support the premises or purported effects outlined in astrological traditions Anti-science( doesn't fall under good science, bad science, or non-science: - Viewing the world in a religious way - Antiscience is a position that rejects science and the scientific method. People holding antiscientific views do not accept that science as an objective method can generate universal knowledge. - Christians believing God created the world o No scientific facts that that support it
Describe the value-free ideal of scientific practice. Why is this ideal concerned with the impact of social/ethical values in science, but not cognitive values in science?
a. clear definitions of the key terms b. a thoughtful example c. a concise argument (for one or both sides of the issue) d. mention of a reading or important person from class Value free ideal - Science should be ultimately an objective, unbiased, rigorously structured pursuit of the absolute truth - Science should be value free - Cognitive values = good - Social / ethical values = bad Example: - Our values don't influence us o get what we want o Demere Douglas: - "If we allow values to play a direct role in these kinds of decisions in science, decisions about what we should believe about the world, about the nature of evidence and its implications, we undermine science's ability to tell us anything about the world. Instead, science would be merely reflecting our wishes, our blinders, and our desires. If we care about reliable knowledge, then values cannot play a direct role in decisions that arise once a study is under way. The potential for these disturbing possibilities underlies the worry that motivates support for the value-free ideal" - the values in science reflect what we want - Values in science haves us believe that what we want is true when it could be incorrect but we wouldn't know because our values motivate us - Removes values o May forget about how it can affect the public o Remove ethics o Makes things easy, correctness is more important
