Two Statues: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (Part 1-1)
Summary
TLDRThis video script delves into the philosophy of science, addressing the conundrum of perceiving a statue both as a solid object and as a collection of subatomic particles. It emphasizes the importance of understanding the philosophical underpinnings of science, which is crucial for interpreting scientific findings and distinguishing science from pseudoscience. The script outlines a series exploring the history and major questions in the philosophy of science, including the nature of scientific knowledge, the objectivity of science, and the relationship between science and reality.
Takeaways
- π² The script discusses a philosophical conundrum presented by Sir Arthur Eddington about perceiving reality versus scientific reality, using the analogy of two 'statues' in a room.
- π¬ It highlights the difference between the 'common sense statue' that we perceive with our senses and the 'scientific statue' composed of subatomic particles.
- π€ The script poses questions about the compatibility of our everyday perceptions with scientific findings, suggesting a need to delve into the philosophy of science.
- π The importance of studying the philosophy of science is emphasized to understand the foundations of scientific knowledge and its impact on our lives.
- π§ The video aims to clarify misconceptions about the philosophy of science and to show its relevance to scientifically literate individuals.
- π The script mentions that science was once a part of philosophy, indicating a historical connection between the two disciplines.
- π€·ββοΈ It points out that some questions, like the nature of space and time or the interpretation of quantum mechanics, straddle the line between philosophy and science.
- 𧩠The series plans to explore various philosophical questions in science, such as the distinction between science and pseudoscience, the justification for scientific generalizations, and the reducibility of sciences to physics.
- π The script suggests that the philosophy of science is necessary for a comprehensive understanding of scientific endeavors and their limitations.
- π The outline for the video series is provided, indicating upcoming topics like the history of science, different views on the nature of science, and key philosophical issues in the 20th century.
Q & A
What is the main conundrum presented by the speaker regarding the perception of a statue?
-The speaker presents a conundrum about the dual nature of a statue when viewed from common sense versus scientific perspectives. From a common-sense perspective, the statue appears solid with color and texture, while from a scientific viewpoint, it is mostly empty space composed of subatomic particles with no color or texture, only charges and fields.
Who is Sir Arthur Eddington and what did he discuss in his essay 'My Two Tables'?
-Sir Arthur Eddington was a preeminent physicist of the early 20th century. In his essay 'My Two Tables', he discussed the problem of perception versus scientific reality, using tables as an example to illustrate how our everyday perception of objects can differ significantly from their scientific composition.
Why does the speaker believe it's important to study the philosophy of science?
-The speaker believes studying the philosophy of science is important because it helps us understand the foundations of science, addresses perplexing questions like the statue conundrum, and provides a tool to penetrate trading confusion and obscurity. It also helps us comprehend how science works and its relationship with the world and our lives.
What is the historical relationship between philosophy and science as mentioned in the script?
-Historically, science was a branch of philosophy known as natural philosophy, where figures like Isaac Newton identified as natural philosophers rather than scientists. It wasn't until the 1700s that science became an autonomous discipline separate from philosophy.
What are some of the major questions in the philosophy of science that the speaker plans to explore?
-The speaker plans to explore questions such as the difference between science and pseudoscience, when scientific generalizations are justified, whether all sciences are reducible to physics, whether science describes reality or is just a useful tool, and whether science is objective or inherently subjective.
What is the problem of induction and why is it important in the philosophy of science?
-The problem of induction is a philosophical question that challenges the justification for inferring universal laws from particular instances. It's important because it deals with the basis of scientific knowledge and how we can reliably form generalizations from empirical observations.
Who is Karl Popper and what is his significance in the philosophy of science?
-Karl Popper was a philosopher of science known for his concept of falsifiability, which proposed that a theory must be falsifiable to be scientific. His work is significant because it shifted the focus from verification to falsification as the criterion for scientific theories.
What is Thomas Kuhn's contribution to the philosophy of science?
-Thomas Kuhn introduced the concept of 'paradigm shifts' in his work 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,' suggesting that scientific progress occurs through periods of normal science punctuated by revolutionary shifts in underlying assumptions and theories.
What does the speaker mean when discussing the potential objectivity of science?
-When discussing the objectivity of science, the speaker is considering whether scientific knowledge is free from bias and perspective or if it inherently contains subjectivity due to the human nature of scientists, which might influence the scientific process and outcomes.
Why is the philosophy of science considered a tool for clarifying complex problems?
-The philosophy of science is seen as a tool for clarifying complex problems because it involves critical thinking and analysis, which can help build bridges across incomprehension and chaos. It aids in understanding the nature, methods, and implications of scientific inquiry.
Outlines
πΏ The Riddle of the Two Statues
The speaker introduces a philosophical conundrum using the metaphor of two statues in their office. The first, visible to the naked eye, is a traditional statue with color and texture. The second, only visible under extreme magnification, is composed of subatomic particles like protons, neutrons, and electrons, and is mostly empty space. This leads to the question of how to reconcile the macroscopic, everyday perception of reality with the microscopic, scientific view. The speaker references Sir Arthur Eddington's essay 'My Two Tables,' which poses a similar question using tables. The video aims to explore the philosophy of science to address such perplexing questions and to understand the philosophical underpinnings of scientific knowledge.
π¬ Philosophy of Science: Navigating the Complexities
The speaker emphasizes the importance of studying the philosophy of science to understand the foundations of scientific knowledge. They argue that while science is empirically based, it leads to conclusions that seem to contradict our everyday experiences, such as the mostly empty space within objects. The speaker suggests that philosophy can help clarify these confusions and that it is crucial for understanding the nature of science. They also highlight the pervasive influence of science in our lives and the need to comprehend how it operates. The speaker outlines the historical connection between philosophy and science, noting that until the 1700s, what we now call science was a part of philosophy. They conclude by suggesting that some current scientific questions are philosophical in nature, requiring a dialogue between scientifically informed philosophers and philosophically inclined scientists.
π Upcoming Series: Exploring the Philosophy of Science
The speaker outlines the topics to be covered in an upcoming video series on the philosophy of science. They plan to discuss the distinction between science and pseudoscience, the justification for scientific generalizations, the reducibility of sciences to physics, the reality of scientific entities, and the objectivity of science. The series will include a brief history of science, an overview of general views on the nature of science, discussions on logical positivism, and explorations of the ideas of key philosophers of science such as Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos, and Paul Feyerabend. The speaker aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the philosophy of science through these lectures.
Mindmap
Keywords
π‘Empiricism
π‘Particle Physics
π‘Philosophy of Science
π‘Sir Arthur Eddington
π‘Macro Properties
π‘Micro Properties
π‘Reductionism
π‘Logical Positivism
π‘Karl Popper
π‘Thomas Kuhn
π‘Objectivity
Highlights
The existence of two perceived 'statues' in the office: one visible to the naked eye and another at the subatomic level.
The philosophical conundrum posed by Sir Arthur Eddington in his essay 'My Two Tables'.
The contrast between the macroscopic, tangible statue and the microscopic, intangible one composed of subatomic particles.
The challenge of reconciling empirical observations with scientific theories.
The importance of studying the philosophy of science to understand the foundations of scientific knowledge.
The pervasive influence of science in modern life and its reliance on philosophical underpinnings.
Philosophy as a tool for clarifying confusion and providing insight into complex problems.
The historical connection between science and philosophy, with science once being a branch of philosophy.
The debate over the reducibility of all sciences to physics and the implications for scientific disciplines.
The question of whether science describes reality or is merely a useful tool for human understanding and manipulation.
The objectivity of science and the potential influence of human biases on scientific inquiry.
The series' aim to explore major questions at the intersection of philosophy and science.
The distinction between science and pseudoscience, with examples like astronomy versus astrology.
The problem of induction and its evolution in 20th-century philosophy of science.
Karl Popper's concept of falsifiability and its impact on the philosophy of science.
Thomas Kuhn's influential ideas on scientific paradigms and their shifts.
Paul Feyerabend's radical views on science as an 'epistemological anarchist'.
Transcripts
if you came into my office and I asked
you how many statues I have there you'd
no doubt say one it's the statue you see
in front of you here bust of Albert
Einstein but strangely enough there
actually might be a reason to think that
there are two statues in my office there
is this statue that you see in front of
you the common sense statue it has color
and texture it's solid you can't pass
through it it's everything you'd come to
expect from a normal statue but
according to particle physics
there's also another statue here -
statue that you'd see only if you could
magnify in very closely - statue
composed of protons neutrons and
electrons it's mostly empty space
about 98% empty space in fact there is
no color there is no texture at this
level for this statue all there is is
charges and fields and so forth so we
have it appears to separate statues the
common sense statue and the scientific
statue how are we to make sense of this
riddle this is an example of a problem
that comes from Sir Arthur Eddington one
of the most preeminent physicists of the
first half the 20th century
you're an essay entitled my two tables
in which he gave this basic problem
using tables instead of statues but the
same basic point holds realize why this
is a conundrum on the one hand science
is supposed to be based on empiricism
what we can see taste touch here and so
forth and what we see taste touch here
and so forth is a solid statue with
various colors textures and other macro
properties but if we follow these the
same sense perception further we end up
finding out that none of these things
appear to be real in a scientific sense
of the word instead what's real is
simply these micro properties the
protons the electrons that charge the
fields and so forth how exactly should
we resolve this phenomenon now recognize
that we can't really appeal to science
itself to make sense of this problem
since science itself is part of what's
giving rise to the problem this is a
classic problem in the philosophy of
science
I found that a lot of people here on
YouTube even scientifically literate and
educated people while they may
understand science they don't really
have a terribly good grasp on the
philosophical foundations of science I
want to try to alleviate that as much as
I can with a short video series here
that's going to cover basically the the
introduction to the philosophy of
science so why should we study the
philosophy of science why should we be
interested in it well first off because
problems like that one are just weird
are there two statues are are there one
statues how can sense perception and
empiricism seem to lead us into mutually
incompatible directions like that that
little that puzzle that paradox said
that Eddington gives us that something
it deserves our attention that deserves
our thought another issue is the fact
that science is the most powerful tool
that humanity has developed to
understand and control the world science
pervades pretty much every single aspect
of our lives not the least of which of
course is the computer on which I'm
making this video the computer upon
which you're watching it in the internet
which is connecting the two of them
every single one of us trusts our lives
to science in multiple ways every single
day from engineering to medicine to
physics to biology to all sorts of other
respects in which we obviously trust and
depend on science it makes sense that we
should try to figure out how science
works well maybe that explains why we
should study science but why should we
study the philosophy of science that
seems like a separate issue and the
reason why is because philosophy is one
of if not the best tool cumin beings
have for penetrated trading confusion
and obscurity if you do it right if you
think clearly philosophy can build
bridges across in comprehension and
chaos that the phrase I'm stealing from
Tom Stoppard by the way now when done
wrong of course philosophy can become
horribly confusing and can make a
complex problem all the worse that's not
a problem for philosophy though that's a
problem for bad philosophy we have to do
philosophy well regardless of whether
we're talking about the philosophy of
science or any other field of philosophy
science is a complex phenomenon and like
any other complex phenomena it needs to
be studied it needs to be scrutinized it
needs to be carefully understood and
when you do that you
engaging in the philosophy of science
not science itself so another way of
understanding the relationship between
philosophy and science is actually by
looking at history the next video I
intend to make in this series actually
will be a brief history of science for
most of history what we today call
science was actually a branch of
philosophy were you to go back in time
and talk to Isaac Newton and ask him his
occupation he would not describe himself
as a scientist he would describe himself
as a natural philosopher science was the
branch of philosophy that studied the
natural world that was the case from the
pre-socratics up until at least the
1700s it was only in the 1700s that
science really became an autonomous
discipline all unto itself my ony
Profaci professor when I was an
undergrad put the point that's why he
said science is just philosophy that
worked and perhaps it implies that that
someday the full of today's philosophy
will become tomorrow's science it's one
way of looking at the relationship
between the two now some questions today
still seem to sort of bridge the gap
between philosophy and science so for
example when you think of a question
like what is space or what is time to an
extent this is a philosophical question
in to an extent this is a scientific
question I've talked in previous videos
about quantum mechanics how should we
interpret quantum mechanics you to go
with the many-worlds hypothesis or
should we go with a Copenhagen
interpretation this is a scientific
question it's a question that needs to
be discussed by scientists but when
they're doing it they're really not
doing science per se they're doing
philosophy so scientifically informed
philosophers and philosophically
inclined scientists are the ones who
need to have this kind of conversation
and that can't really happen unless
these two disciplines are in a position
to mutually understand one another so
what are some of those few major
questions that I plan to be looking at
well what about what is the difference
precisely between science and
pseudoscience standard example here is
astronomy is clearly a science and
astrology is clearly a pseudoscience but
exactly what is the difference what is
it that makes astrology as pseudoscience
and astronomy a legitimate science there
that's not as clear-cut an issue as it
might seem at first glance another issue
when is a scientific generalization
justified when can we go from look we
have this data set so it's fair to say
based on this data set that we
I hear a natural law of some kind or or
at least a regularity which we can
reliably trust on how do we know how
much data we need in order to make that
leap how what do we do with that doesn't
seem to fit that general mode that
doesn't seem to fit that natural law how
can we distinguish in other words
between coincidences
and natural laws again at first glance
that might seem like an obvious question
but I hope if you stick with this series
you'll find out it's actually a lot more
difficult than you might realize
another issue is it the case that all
Sciences are ultimately reducible to
physics it's sometimes argued that
really fundamentally psychology should
be explained in terms of biology and
neurophysiology and and that can
fundamentally be explained in terms of
chemistry and chemistry can
fundamentally be explained in terms of
physics ultimately all of science is
reduced to physics it's kind of
reductionistic approach it is popular in
some circles usually of course amongst
physicists who like to think of their
their discipline is the only true
science fairly famous quote and frigging
who said at the moment but some
important quantum physicists once said
that all all science is out of physics
or stamp collecting and again an
argument can be made for this view but
an argument has to be made for this T
but it doesn't get to win by default so
we have to sort of figure out precisely
how we would adjudicate this kind of
question and when we do that we are
engaged in the philosophy of science
next set of questions the science
describe reality or is it simply sort of
the useful tool that's not really
talking about the fundamental structure
of reality it's just a way of you know
the human beings can sort of talk about
what about their experiences in a way
that helps them manipulate their
experiences so if you think about
entities like quarks and electrons and
so forth are these real entities do they
actually exist or are they simply sort
of hypothetical entities things are sort
of posited so our scientific models can
make sense of our macro empirical data
again arguments can be made on both
sides of this and so in order to do that
we have to do some pretty complex
philosophy of science lastly is science
objective whatever that word might mean
or does it have sort of an inherent bias
an inherent perspective inherent
subjectivity that prevents it from being
objective I mean scientists do of course
try to just follow the evidence and
or the evidence leads but there are only
human after all they're subject to the
same sort of prejudices and biases that
all human beings are now maybe those
prejudices and biases wash out
collectively or wash out over time or
maybe they're supposed to but don't
actually do that so that's the kind of
question that we're going to want to
have a better grasp on by the time this
series is done with okay here's sort of
a brief outline of the series because
I'm imagining I can't promise I will
necessarily stick to this outline but
this is what I'm envisioning for the
next several videos so this first video
here is just sort of a general overview
and a general introduction the next
video like I say should be a brief
history of science the third video will
be sort of give us three views general
views on the nature of science the
fourth we'll talk about the rise of
logical positivism and the fifth will
talk about the follow logical positivism
the the majority these videos starting
from 4:00 on we'll be talking about
philosophy science in the 20th century
the sixth video will talk about the
problem of induction which is of course
a classic problem dating back at least
as far as David Hume will talk about how
it has modified in the 20th century the
seventh video will talk about the
problem of confirmation the 8th will
talk about Karl Popper and name it's
probably familiar to at least some of
you and his ideas of unfallen
the night and the 10th lectures will
focus on Thomas Kuhn probably the single
most important philosopher of science in
the 20th century the eleventh lecture
we'll talk about Emmure lack Atocha and
his idea of a research tradition and
then the twelfth and for the moment what
I'm expecting to be the final lecture
we'll talk about the self-proclaimed
epistemological anarchist Paul fire oven
and his very revolutionary ideas about
science
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)