Two Statues: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (Part 1-1)

Summary

This 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

• 😲 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.
• 🔬 It highlights the difference between the 'common sense statue' that we perceive with our senses and the 'scientific statue' composed of subatomic particles.
• 🤔 The script poses questions about the compatibility of our everyday perceptions with scientific findings, suggesting a need to delve into the philosophy of science.
• 📚 The importance of studying the philosophy of science is emphasized to understand the foundations of scientific knowledge and its impact on our lives.
• 🧠 The video aims to clarify misconceptions about the philosophy of science and to show its relevance to scientifically literate individuals.
• 📈 The script mentions that science was once a part of philosophy, indicating a historical connection between the two disciplines.
• 🤷‍♂️ 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.
• 🧩 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.
• 🌐 The script suggests that the philosophy of science is necessary for a comprehensive understanding of scientific endeavors and their limitations.
• 📝 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

00:00

🗿 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.

05:01

🔬 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.

10:03

📚 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.

Keywords

💡Empiricism

Empiricism is a philosophical theory that knowledge is acquired primarily through experience and observation. In the context of the video, it is contrasted with scientific findings that suggest the macro properties we perceive, like color and texture, may not be as real as the micro properties such as protons and electrons. The video script uses the example of the 'common sense statue' to illustrate how our empirical observations might differ from the reality described by particle physics.

💡Particle Physics

Particle physics is a branch of physics that studies the fundamental constituents of matter and radiation, and the interactions between them. The video discusses how, according to particle physics, what we perceive as a solid statue is actually composed mostly of empty space with particles like protons, neutrons, and electrons. This challenges our common sense perception and introduces the concept of the 'scientific statue'.

💡Philosophy of Science

The philosophy of science is a subfield of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The video script emphasizes the importance of studying the philosophy of science to understand the nature of scientific knowledge and the methods used to acquire it. It is highlighted as a tool to resolve conundrums like the 'two statues' problem presented by Sir Arthur Eddington.

💡Sir Arthur Eddington

Sir Arthur Eddington was a British astrophysicist and a philosopher of science. In the video, his essay 'My Two Tables' is mentioned as a classic example of the conundrum faced when reconciling empirical observations with scientific theories. Eddington's work is used to introduce the philosophical problem of how to reconcile our everyday perceptions with the microscopic reality described by physics.

💡Macro Properties

Macro properties refer to the large-scale, observable characteristics of objects, such as color, texture, and solidity. The video script contrasts macro properties with micro properties, noting that while we perceive a statue as having these macro properties, at a microscopic level, these properties may not exist in the way we think they do.

💡Micro Properties

Micro properties are the fundamental characteristics of matter at the atomic or subatomic level, such as charge and mass. The video script uses the concept of micro properties to describe the 'scientific statue,' which is composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons, and is mostly empty space. This concept challenges our macro-level perception of the statue.

💡Reductionism

Reductionism is the idea that complex phenomena can be explained by reducing them to their fundamental components. In the video, the concept is discussed in relation to whether all sciences can be reduced to physics, suggesting that disciplines like psychology and biology can ultimately be explained by the principles of physics.

💡Logical Positivism

Logical positivism is a philosophical movement that held that the meaning of a statement is determined by its method of verification. The video script mentions that the series will cover the rise and fall of logical positivism, which had a significant impact on the philosophy of science in the 20th century.

💡Karl Popper

Karl Popper was an Austrian-British philosopher known for his work on the philosophy of science, particularly for his concept of falsifiability. The video script indicates that Popper's ideas will be discussed, especially his notion that scientific theories should be open to being disproven, which is a key aspect of the scientific method.

💡Thomas Kuhn

Thomas Kuhn was an American philosopher of science known for his work on the structure of scientific revolutions. The video script highlights Kuhn's importance in the philosophy of science, particularly his concept of 'paradigm shifts,' which refers to the way scientific understanding can change dramatically when a new paradigm replaces an old one.

💡Objectivity

Objectivity refers to the state of being unbiased and based on facts, especially in the context of scientific research. The video script raises questions about whether science can be truly objective, given that scientists are human and may be subject to biases and perspectives. This question is central to the philosophy of science and the nature of scientific inquiry.

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