Science, Knowledge, and Objectivity

PHIL 254gp

Tues/Thurs 12:30pm-1:45pm

Montgomery Ross Fisher Building,MRF 340

Instructor

Teaching Assistants

Required Texts

Course description

Course assessment (summary)

Contacting me and office hours

Class rules

Schedule of my classes

Procedure for discussion classes and essays

Schedule of TA classes

Structure of mid-terms and finals

Detailed rules for course credit

Relevant USC policy statements

Instructor

David Wallace

Email:

Web:

Office: Mudd Hall, Room 205E

Office hours: Tuesday 2pm-3pm

Teaching Assistants

Douglas Wadle () – Wednesday sections

Shane Ward () – Thursday sections

Bixin Guo () – Friday sections

Required Texts

James Ladyman, Understanding Philosophy of Science (Routledge, 2002)

Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edition (Chicago, 1970)

Both should be available from the campus bookstore.

Course description

Science, and the technologies that it has provided, are at the heart of modern society, and the “scientific method” is often held up as the gold standard in making discoveries about the world. But what actually isscience, what is its “method”, and just how seriously should we take its discoveries? In this course we will investigate three linked topics:

1)The demarcation question: what is the line between science and non-science, or science and pseudo-science

2)The rationality of science: how should we understand the scientific method, how – if at all – does it differ from other forms of discovery, and – above all – can it be understood as a genuinely objective way to gain knowledge?

3)The nature of scientific knowledge: should we accept as true the weird and wonderful things that modern science seems to be telling us about the Universe – quarks, distant galaxies, DNA molecules, parallel universes – or are scientific theories at most handy tools to manipulate the world we observe with our senses?

Course objectives

To understand the main themes in twentieth (and twenty-first) century philosophy of the natural sciences
To develop and improve your skills in formulating, explaining, and evaluating arguments.

Course assessment (summary)

Course credit will be awarded as follows (see below for more detailed policy):

1)There will be two midterms and a final exam. The first midterm will be worth 10% of your mark, the second 15%, and the final25%.

2)You will each write three essays of 1200-1500 words, to be discussed in a small group with your fellow students. Each essay, if submitted on time and above a minimal standard of adequacy, earns an automatic 3% credit.

3)The best two of the essays (which you have a chance to revise after the discussion) will each count 15% towards your mark. You may not gain credit for any essay submitted too late.

4)8% will be awarded on the basis of your engagement with the discussion sessions on your and your fellow students’ essays. You earn 1% for satisfactory participation in each discussion session, to a maximum of 8%.

5)There will be a short logical-reasoning exercise at the beginning of the course, which will count 3%.

There is one opportunity for extra credit: JEP (Joint educational project). Details will be provided during the first week of class. Satisfactory completion earns an additional 3% credit. No other extra credit will be approved. There will be no make-up exams.

Contacting me and office hours

I will hold office hours 2pm-3pm Tuesdays during classes, except on February 13th, February 20th, and Spring Break.Weather permitting this will be in the courtyard of the Mudd Hall of Philosophy (MHP); if it’s wet, in my office, MHP 205E. (Ask at the office in MHP if you’re not sure where that is). Please do use them! I like philosophy of science, and enjoy discussing it with people, and I don’t bite. And in philosophy, questions that seem “silly” or “naïve” are often the deepest and most important questions, so don’t be put off asking about anything you’re unsure about.

With 140 people in this class, I can’t realistically discuss philosophical topics by email, so don’t email me with questions – ask them in class, or in office hours. If you have a logistical issue about the course that you need to raise, in the first instance raise it with your TA. If they can’t help, ask me in person or email me with the subject heading “254 – [your name]”. I don’t guarantee an instant response!

Class rules

Some ground rules:

I expect you to have read the readings for each class before the class. The readings are usually quite short (there is typically 20-40 pages to read for each class) but philosophy needs to be read slowly and carefully, so put aside several hours for each week’s reading.
The class readings are all available on the course website. The slides for each class will be made available on the class website either immediately before the class, or shortly afterwards.
You are stronglyencouraged to take notes in the old-fashioned way, on pen and paper. (There is educational research that says that students take things in better this way).
If, nonetheless, you want to use an electronic device It must be on flight mode, i.e., you can’t have access to the Internet during class. It’s too distracting for you and others. The same applies to any device (e.g. cellphone) that you bring to class but don’t use.
I expect to have a five-minute break about half way through each session.

Schedule of my classes

Beyond about the first three weeks, this is provisional. It is likely that I’ll tweak the readings and possibly some of the topics as we go along.

January 9th: Introduction – the Overton decision

R. Stuart, “Judge overturns Arkansas law on creationism”, New York Times, January 6, 1982; at
M. Ruse, “Creation Science is not science”, Science, Technology and Human Values 7 (1982) pp.72-78
L. Laudan, “Commentary: Science at the Bar: causes for concern”, Science, Technology, and Human Values 7 (1982) pp. 16-19

January 11th: Induction I – deductive and inductive reasoning

J. Ladyman, Understanding Philosophy of Science (Routledge, 2002), ch.1 (pp. 11-30)

January 16th: Induction II – the problem of induction

J. Ladyman, ibid., chapter 2 (pp. 31-60)
B. Russell, The Problems of Philosophy (Oxford University Press 1912), ch.6 (pp.60-69).
Optional: D. Hume, Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1777), sections IV-V.

January 18th: Logical positivism I – the verification criterion of meaning

A. Ayer, Language, Truth and Logic (Gollancz, 1936), ch.1 (pp. 45-61)
G. Ray, “Logical Positivism”, in W. Newton-Smith (ed.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Science (Blackwell, pp. 243-251.

January 23rd: Logical positivism II – the Duhem-Quine thesis

W.V.O.Quine, “Two Dogmas of Empiricism”, Philosophical Review 60 (1951), pp. 20-43
Optional: P. Duhem, ”Physical Theory and Experiment”, in M.Curd and J.A.Cover (eds.), Philosophy of Science: the Central Issues (Norton, 1998)

January 25th: Popper I – Falsificationism

K.Popper: Conjectures and Refutations (3rd edition; Routledge, 1963), ch. I sections I-III (pp. 43-54)
K.Popper: The Logic of Scientific Discovery (Hutchinson, 1959), ch.I: “A survey of some fundamental problems (pp. 27-48)
J.Ladyman, ibid, ch.3 introduction, 3.1, 3.3 (pp. 62-68, 74-76).

January 30th: Popper II – induction

J. Ladyman, ibid, the rest of ch.3 (pp. 69-74,77-91)
D. Deutsch, The Fabric of Reality (Allen Lane, 1997), ch.7 (pp. 141-166)
(optional) K.Popper: Conjectures and Refutations (3rd edition; Routledge, 1963), ch. I sections IV-X (pp. 54-78)

February 1st: Lakatos I – Versions of Falsificationism

I.Lakatos, “Science and Pseudoscience”, in Philosophical Papers vol.1 (Cambridge, 1978). Pp.1-8
I.Lakatos, “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programs”, in Philosophical Papers vol 1, ibid. Sections 1-2 (pp. 8-46).

February 6th: Lakatos II – Scientific Research Programs

Lakatos, “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programs”, in Philosophical Papers vol 1, ibid. Sections 3a-3b (pp.47-52) and optionally 3c (pp.52-55)
W.H. Newton-Smith, The Rationality of Science (Routledge, 1981), ch.IV (pp.77-102).

February 8th: Kuhn I – normal science

T. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, ch.I-V (pp. 1-51).
J. Ladyman, ibid., pp. 98-104.
(optional) K.Popper, “Normal Science and its Dangers”, in I.Lakatos and A.Musgrave (ed.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge (1970), pp. 51-58.

February 13th: Kuhn II – anomaly, crisis, revolution

T. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, ch.VI-IX (pp. 51-110).
J. Ladyman, ibid., pp. 105-108.

February 15th: no class

February 20th: Mid-term exam 1 (12:45pm-1:45pm)

February 22nd: Kuhn III – Theory-ladenness, incommensurability

T. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, ch.X (pp. 111-135).
J. Ladyman, ibid., pp. 109-117.

February 27th: Kuhn IV - Rationality and theory change

T. Kuhn, “Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice”, in T. Kuhn, The Essential Tension (Chicago, 1977), pp. 320-339.
J.Ladyman, ibid., pp.118-122.
H. Sankey, “Kuhn’s changing concept of incommensurability”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 44 (1993), pp. 759-774.

March 1st: Scientific Realism I – Explanation and Inference

J. Ladyman, ibid., ch.6, pp.196-225
G.Harman, “Inference to the Best Explanation”, Philosophical Review 74 (1965) pp.88-95.

March6th: Scientific Realism II – No Miracles?

J.Ladyman, ibid., ch.5 (pp. 129-161)
S.Psillos, Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth (Routledge, 1999), ch.4 (pp. 70-98)

March 8th: Scientific Realism III – Underdetermination

J. Ladyman, ibid, pp. 162-184)
L. Laudan, “Demystifying Underdetermination”, in C. Wade Savage (ed.), Scientific Theories, vol. 14 of Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science (U.Minnesota Press, 1990), pp.267-97.

March 11th-18th: Spring Break

March 20th: van Fraassen I – Constructive Empiricism

B. van Fraassen, The Scientific Image (Oxford, 1980), chapter 1 (pp. 6-40)
J. Ladyman, ibid, pp. 165-193.

March 22nd: van Fraassen II – criticisms of constructive empiricism

Musgrave, “Realism versus Constructive Empiricism”, in Paul M. Churchland and Clifford A. Hooker (eds.), Images of Science (Chicago, 1985), pp. 197-221.
G. Maxwell, “The ontological status of theoretical entities”, pp. 3-15 of H. Feigl and G. Maxwell (eds.), Scientific Explanation, Space and Time, vol 3 of Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science (Minnesota, 1962). Reprinted in M Curd and J.A.Cover (ed.), Philosophy of Science: the central issues (W.W.Norton, 1998), pp. 1052-1063.

March 27th: The pessimistic meta-induction I – the issue and the argument

L. Laudan, “A confutation of convergent realism”, Philosophy of Science 48 (1981), pp. 19-49.
J. Ladyman, ibid., pp. 230-238.

March 29th: The pessimistic meta-induction II – realist responses

J. Ladyman, ibid., pp. 230-238.
J. Worrall, “Structural Realism: The best of both worlds?”, Dialectica43 (1989), pp. 99-124.

April 3rd: Structural Realism

Readings TBC

April 5th: no class

April 10th: Mid-term exam 2 (12:45pm-1:45pm)

April 12th: Scientific Explanation I

Readings TBC

April 17th: Scientific Explanation II

Readings TBC

April 19th: Quantum Mechanics I: the measurement problem

Readings TBC

April 24th: Quantum Mechanics II: solving the measurement problem

Readings TBC

April 26th: Final session, content TBC

May 9th: Final exam (2pm-4pm)

Procedure for discussion classes and essays

Classes (with your TA) are held on Wednesday or Thursday, between the two sessions with me. Each class has a topic (usually based on the material I covered a week or two previously).

There are fifteen classes. Nine of them are essay discussion classes. For these classes I want you to break into four discussion groups of six (one or two of the groups will need to have seven, not six, in). Label yourselves A, B, C, D, E, F. (Double up on one of these if there are seven of you.) For each class, there are two essay topics, and two of you will write those essays, so you’ll be writing three essays each over the semester.

Instructions for essays

A philosophy essay is an argument. It should reach a clear conclusion which is based on the reasoning given.
Some essay titles give you an instruction, e.g., “State and defend Popper’s view on induction”. This means the essay should begin by giving a clear description, in your own words, of the position you are defending. Then you should give the best argument you can as to why the position is correct.
Other essay titles ask a question, e.g., “Is Popper’s view on induction correct?” In that case, your essay’s final paragraph should answer the question and the rest of the essay should be an argument which justifies that answer.
Remember the Principle of Charity! When you are criticizing a position, look for the strongest, most defensible way of understanding that position before you say what’s wrong with it.
Your essay must be 1200-1500 words in length. This is intentionally short. You should find it hard to get your argument into 1500 words, not hard to think of 1200 words to write. (So don’t waste space on irrelevancies, and on no account use the phrase “ever since the dawn of time”!)
Send the essay to the TA, and to everyone else in your discussion group, by 9pm on the Sunday before the class. Everyone in the group needs to read the essay, so it’s really important that it isn’t late. Work that is up to 48 hours late will lead to a mark penalty. Work more than 48 hours late will not be marked or credited.
After the class, you may if you wish revise the essay and resubmit it. (Only the resubmitted essay will receive comments and a mark.) The deadline for submission of a revised essay is 9am of the Monday of the week of the next class.

Instructions for discussion classes

Make sure you read both of the essays carefully beforehand!
The point of the class is to have a constructive discussion of the two essays and the arguments in them (and probably to widen the discussion beyond those specifics onto the general topic). The TA will facilitate the discussions but will only be in each one for a quarter of the time.
For each essay, one of you (not the author) will be designated to present the argument in the essay. Don’t literally read it out, but explain (take about 3-5 minutes) what the essay is saying. Then the author of the essay should comment on that presentation (point out any miscommunications). After that, spend 10-15 minutes, as a group, discussing those arguments and the wider topic. Then move on to the other essay and do the same thing.
These discussions should be constructive. The point of philosophy is to assess arguments for and against positions in a careful and reasoned manner. It is fine to point out what seem to be problems or flaws in an argument. It is not fine to be rude or aggressive, ever.
The Principle of Charity should be adopted towards your fellow students’ essays too!

Schedule of TA classes

Class 1: Introduction (January 10th-12th).

No essays; class structure to be decided by your TA.

Class 2: Logical reasoning and logistics(January 17th-19th)

No essays; this class will go over the logic exercise and also organize you into your discussion groups.

Class 3: Creation Science (January 24th-26th).

Essay titles:

(A) State and defend Ruse’s argument that creation science is not science (presenter: D)

(B) State and defend Laudan’s argument that creation science is science (presenter: E)

Essays due 9pm January 21st from A,B. Revisions due by 9am January 29th.

Class 4: Logical Positivism and the Duhem-Quine Thesis(January 31st – February 2nd)

Essay titles:

(D) State and explain Quine’s “two dogmas” and their implications (presenter: A)

Essays due 9pm January 28th from C,D. Revisions due by 9am February 5th.

Class 5: Popper on induction (February 7th-9th)

Essay titles:

(E) State and defend Popper’s proposed solution to the Problem of Induction (presenter: B)

(F) What are the problems with Popper’s falsificationism and are they fatal for the position? (presenter: C)

Essays due 9pm February 4th from E,F. Revisions due by 9am February 12th.

Class 6: Review (February 14th-16th)

No essays; class structure to be decided by your TA, focusing on revision for the first midterm.

Class 7: non-essay class(February 21st-23rd)

No essays; class structure to be decided by your TA.

Class 8: Kuhn and Lakatos on theories (February 28th- March 2nd)

Essay titles:

(A) What is Lakatos’s account of a scientific research program and how does it improve on Popper’s? (presenter: D)

(B) What is Kuhn’s account of normal science and theory change? (presenter: E)

Essays due 9pm February 25th from A, B. Revisions due by 9am March 5th.

Class 9: The rationality of theory change (March 7th-9th)

Essay titles:

(D) To what extent is the process of scientific revolution a rational process? (presenter: A)

Essays due 9pm March 4th from C, D. Revisions due by 9am March 12th.

No classes March 14th-16th (Spring Break)

Class 10: Inference to the best explanation and scientific realism (March 21st-23rd)

Essay titles:

(E) State and assess Harman’s proposal to replace induction with inference to the best explanation (presenter: B)

(F) What is “scientific realism” and what is the best argument for accepting it? (presenter: C)

Essays due 9pm March 18th from E, F. Revisions due by 9am March 26th.

Class 11: Constructive Empiricism (March 28th-30th)

Essay titles:

(A) State and defend van Fraassen’s constructive empiricism (presenter: D)

(B) What is the best case that can be made for rejecting constructive empiricism? (presenter: E)

Essays due 9pm March 25th from A, B. Revisions due by 9am April 2nd.

Class 12: Review (April 4th-6th)

No essays; class structure to be decided by your TA, focusing on revision for the second midterm.

Class 13: non-essay class(April 11th-13th)

No essays; class structure to be decided by your TA.

Class 14: The pessimistic argument (April 18th-20th)

Essay titles:

(D) How should the realist respond to the pessimistic meta-induction? (presenter: A)

Essays due 9pm April 15th from C, D. Revisions due by 9am April 23rd.

Class 15: Scientific Explanation (April 25th-27th)

Essay titles:

(E) What is the Deductive-Nomological account of explanation and what are its key flaws? (presenter: B)

(F) What is the best alternative to the Deductive-Nomological account of explanation? (presenter: C)

Essays due 9pm April 22nd from E, F. Revisions due by 9am April 30th.

Structure of mid-terms and finals

The exams will each have two sections: a short-answer section (worth 20% of the mark) and an essay section (worth the remaining 80%). The two mid-terms will each be one hour long and require you to write one essay. The final will be two hours long and require you to write two essays.

Practical arrangements

The exams will all be in our usual classroom (MRF 340).
The mid-terms will begin at 12:45pm and finish at 1:45pm. The final will begin at 2pm and finish at 4pm. Don’t be late – you won’t get extra time.
These are closed-book exams; you may not bring notes or books.
Bring a USC pad to the exam; we will swap it for a fresh philosophy pad at the start.

Rescheduling of exams

I do not normally allow students to reschedule mid-term exams. If you think you have an exceptionally good reason, talk to me about it at least a week in advance, and expect to get the answer “no”. The final definitely can’t be rescheduled.