HPSC2003 Philosophy of Science 2. Course Syllabus

Transcription

1 Course Syllabus session Dr. Chiara Ambrosio Course Information This course is a continuation of HPSC 1003 Philosophy of Science, intended for students that have completed that course or studied a similar introduction to philosophy of science elsewhere. The course explores some central debates in general philosophy of science, including: realism and antirealism about scientific theories, scientific explanation, laws of nature, reductionism and the unity of science. It also addresses some areas that are beyond analytical philosophy of science, such as historical epistemology and the American Pragmatist tradition. After this course you should possess a fairly well-rounded view of the field, as well as a set of skills that will allow you to work further on your own. Basic course information Course website: Moodle Web site: Assessment: Timetable: Not Available search HPSC2003 One video entry (5 minutes, worth 10% of the final mark); one essay (2500 words, worth 50% of the final mark), and a final examination (worth 40% of the final mark) Prerequisites: Students must have taken HPSC 1003 (or equivalent), or must have tutor s approval. Required texts: Course tutor: Martin Curd, J. A. Cover and Christopher Pincock (eds.) (2013) Philosophy of Science: the Central Issues (New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company). The first edition (1998) is also fine. Chiara Ambrosio Contact: c.ambrosio@ucl.ac.uk t: Web: Office location: 22 Gordon Square, Room 1.2 Office hours: Wednesdays 11-1

2 Schedule Part 1 Realism, Anti-Realism and Everything in Between Tuesday 10 January What is Scientific Realism? Required Readings: Hilary Putnam (1978) What is realism? in Meaning and the Moral Sciences (London: Routledge), only up to p Larry Laudan A confutation of convergent realism, in Curd, Cover and Pincock, pp Kuhn, T. S. (1982) Commensurability, comparability, communicability, Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association Biennial Meeting, 1982, vol. 2 Invited papers and symposia [download from JSTOR Philosophy of science see also related articles in the same symposium]. Reprinted in Kuhn (2000) The road since structure (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), pp Philip Kitcher (1993) The Advancement of Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press), ch. 5, pp only. Bain, J. and Norton, J. D. (2001) What should philosophers of science learn from the history of the electron?, in J. Z. Buchwald and A. Warwick (eds.) Histories of the electron. The birth of microphysics (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press). Psillos, Stathis. (1996) Scientific Realism and the Pessimistic Induction, Philosophy of Science 63, Proceedings of the 1996 Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Pt. I: Contributed Papers: S306 S314. Worrall, J. (1994) How to remain (reasonably) optimistic: scientific realism and the luminiferous ether, Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association Biennial Meeting, Contributed Papers (1994), vol.5(1), pp Tuesday 17 January Truth and its Discontents: Constructive Empiricism Required readings: Bas van Fraassen Arguments concerning scientific realism in Curd, Cover and Pincock, pp Alan Musgrave Realism versus constructive empiricism, in Curd, Cover and Pincock, pp

3 Further readings: Grover Maxwell The ontological status of theoretical entities in Curd, Coverand Pincock, pp Peter Lipton (2004, 2 nd ed.) Inference to the best explanation (London: Routledge), ch. 4. Paul Churchland (1985) The Ontological Status of Observables: in praise of the Superempirical Virtues, in P. M. Churchland and C. A. Hooker (eds.) Images of science(chicago: University of Chicago Press), pp Van Fraassen, Bas (1985) Empiricism in the Philosophy of Science, in P. M. Churchland and C. A. Hooker (eds.) Images of science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), pp Tuesday 24 January If You can Spray Them, They are Real : Ian Hacking s Experimental Realism Required readings Ian Hacking, Experimentation and scientific realism in Curd, Cover and Pincock, pp David Resnik, Hacking s experimental realism in Curd, Cover and Pincock, pp Further readings Hacking, I. (1983) Representing and Intervening (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), ch.10. Hacking, I. (1989) Extragalatic reality: the case of gravitational lensing Philosophy of Science 56 pp Shapere, Dudley (1982), The concept of observation in science and philosophy,philosophy of science 49: Massimi, M. (2004), Non-defensible middle ground for experimental realism: why we are justified to believe in colored quarks, Philosophy of Science 71, Ian Hacking Do we see though a microscope? in P. Churchland and C. A. Hooker, Images of science, pp , with a reply from Bas van Fraassen pp Tuesday 31 January Beyond Realism and Anti-Realism? Required Readings:

4 Hasok Chang (2012), Active Realism and the Reality of H 2 O, in: Is Water H 2 O? Evidence, Realism and Pluralism. Dordrecht: Springer, pp Hasok Chang (2012), Is Water H 2 O? Evidence, Realism and Pluralism. Dordrecht: Springer. Hasok Chang (2005), A Case for Old Fashioned Observability, and a Reconstructed Constrictive Empiricism, Philosophy of Science, vol. 72, no. 5, pp Hasok Chang (2001), How to Take Realism Beyond Foot-Stamping, Philosophy, 2001, Vol.76(1), pp.5-30 Stathis Psillos, A Philosophical Study of the Transition from the Caloric Theory of Heat to Thermodynamics: Resisting the Pessimistic Meta-induction, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 25 (1994): Hasok Chang Preservative Realism and its Discontents: Revisiting Caloric, Philosophy of Science, 70 (2003), pp Interlude: Pragmatism(s) and Philosophy of Science Tuesday 7 February Pragmatism, old and new Required Reading: Charles S. Peirce, The Fixation of Belief, in: The Essential Peirce, (vol.1), ed. by Nathan Houser and Christian Kloesel. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, pp David Boersema (2009), Pragmatism and Reference. Bambridge, Mass: The MIT Press. Susan Haack (2013), Putting Philosophy to Work, Amherst: Prometheus Books. Christopher Hookway (2013) "Pragmatism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = < Christopher Hookway (2000), Truth, Rationality and Pragmatism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

5 Talisse, R. and S. Aikin (eds.), 2011, The Pragmatism Reader: From Peirce through the Present, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Talisse, R. and S. Aikin (eds.), Pragmatism: a Guide for the Perplexed, London: Continuum. Thayer, H.S. (ed.), Pragmatism: The Classic Writings, Hackett. Sami Philström (2004), Peirce s Place in the Pragmatist Tradition, in: The Cambridge Companion to Peirce, ed. by Cheryl Misak. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp Reading Week (14 February) No Lectures Part 2: Explanation, Laws and the (Dis)Unity of Science Tuesday 21 February The Deductive-Nomological Model of Explanation and its Pitfalls Required readings: Carl G. Hempel Two basic types of scientific explanation in Curd, Cover and Pincock, pp W. Salmon (1992) Scientific explanation in Salmon, Earman (eds.) Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company), pp Rudolf Carnap, The Value of Laws: Explanation and Prediction, in Curd, Cover and Pincock, pp Carl G. Hempel Inductive-statistical explanation in Curd, Cover and Pincock, pp P. Humphreys (1989) Scientific explanation: the causes, some of the causes, and nothing but the causes, in P. Kitcher and W. Salmon (eds.) Scientific explanation, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science Vol. XIII, pp [Short Loan Collection]. P. Kitcher (1989) Explanatory unification and the causal structure of the world in P. Kitcher and W. Salmon (eds.) Scientific explanation, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science Vol. XIII, pp [Short Loan Collection]. P. Kitcher (1981) Explanatory unification, in Curd, Cover and Pincock, pp Peter Railton A deductive-nomological model of probabilistic explanation, in Curd, Cover and Pincock, pp

6 W. Salmon Four decades of scientific explanation, reprinted in P. Kitcher and W. Salmon (eds.) Scientific explanation, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science Vol. XIII, see especially Sections 0, 1, and 2, pp [Short Loan Collection]. M. Friedman (1974) Explanation and scientific understanding, Journal of Philosophy71, Wesley C. Salmon "Causation and Explanation: A reply to two critics", Philosophy of Science 64 (3): Stathis Psillos (2002), Causation and Explanation. Chesham: Acumen Publishing Van Fraassen (1980) The scientific image, ch. 5. Tuesday 28 February Laws of Nature Required Readings: Stathis Psillos (2002), The Regularity View of Laws, and Laws as Relations Among Universals (Chapters 6 and 7), in: Causation and Explanation. Chesham: Acumen Publishing, pp J. W. Carroll Laws of nature, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (see especially sections 1,2, 3, and 8). Nelson Goodman (1983), Fact, Fiction and Forecast (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. A.J. Ayer What is a law of nature?, in Curd, Cover and Pincock, pp D. M. Armstrong (1983) What is a law of nature? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), ch. 1, 2, 5. [Short Loan Collection] Bas van Fraassen (1989) Laws and symmetry, (Oxford: Clarendon), ch, 3 [Short Loan Collection in Main Library] Fred Dretske Laws of nature in Curd, Cover and Pincock pp Tuesday 7 March The (Dis)Unity of Science Required Readings:

7 Richard Creath (1996) The Unity of Science: Carnap, Neurath and Beyond, in P. Galison and D. Stump, The Disunity of Science (Stanford: Stanford University Press), pp John Dupré (1996) Metaphysical Disorder and Scientific Disunity in P. Galison and D. Stump, The Disunity of Science (Stanford: Stanford University Press), pp Further readings: John Dupré (1993) The Disorder of Things. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Peter Galison and David J. Stump (1996), The Disunity of Science (Stanford: Stanford University Press). Alan Richardson and Thomas Uebel.." The Cambridge Companion to Logical Empiricism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Available electronically at Cambridge Collections Online). Tuesday 14 March From Disunity to Pluralism Required Readings: Hasok Chang (2012), Pluralism in Science: A Call to Action in: Is Water H 2 O? Evidence, Realism and Pluralism. Dordrecht: Springer, pp Paul Feyerabend (1975). Against method. London: New Left Books. Paul Feyerabend ( 1999) The conquest of abundance: A tale of abstraction vs. the richness of being. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. John Dupré (1993) The Disorder of Things. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Peter Galison and David J. Stump, The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts, and Power (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996). S. Kellert, H. Longino and K. Waters (eds.) (2006), Scientific Pluralism (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press). Hasok Chang (2009) "We Have Never Been Whiggish (About Phlogiston)", Centaurus, vol. 51, pp Hasok Chang (2012), Is Water H 2 O? Evidence, Realism and Pluralism. Dordrecht: Springer.

8 Epilogue: Let s start from the beginning! HPSC2003 Philosophy of Science 2 Tuesday 21 March Historical Epistemology: recasting philosophical debates in light of history? Required readings: Thomas Sturm and Uljana Feest (2011) What (Good) is Historical Epistemology?, in Erkenntnis, vol. 73 no. 3, pp This paper is an introduction to a special volume on Historical Epistemology. Read it, and and choose one more piece from the same issue. You can use the whole journal as a source of further readings too. Cristina Chimisso (2001), Gaston Bachelard: Critic of Science and the Imagination, Routledge Studies in Twentieth-Century Philosophy, London and New York: Routledge. Cristina Chimisso (2009), From Phenomenology to Phenomenotechnique: The Role of Early Twentieth Century Physics in Gaston Bachelard s Philosophy, in Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, vol. 39 no. 3, pp Gary Gutting (2005), Continental Philosophy of Science. Oxford: Blackwell. Gingras, Yves (2010), Naming without Necessity. On the Genealogy and uses of the label Historical Epistemology. Revue de Synthése vol. 131 no. 3, pp Hans Jörg Rheinberger (2005) Gaston Bachelard and the Notion of Phenomenotechnique, in Perspectives on Science, vol. 13, no. 3, pp Hans Jörg Rheinberger (2010), On Historicising Epistemology. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Assessment and Instructions Summary Coursework Description Deadline Word limit 4pm, N/A Video Monday 20 February (5 mins video)

9 Coursework Exam Essay Exam 11.59pm Monday 3 April Term 3 Date TBC 2500 words NA Assessment is by a written examination (40%) in term 3, a 5 minutes video entry (10%) and one essay (2,500 words, contributing 50% of the final mark). You must submit all the coursework and sit the exam in order to complete this course unit. The video is due on Monday 20 February February at 4pm. This is a new form of assessment on this module, aimed at developing your presentation and oral argumentation skills. It will assess your capacity to use critically the frameworks and philosophical positions we covered in the first part of the course. It will also serve as a general opportunity to ensure that the material we covered in the first part of the course is clear, before we move on to part 2. The pedagogical rationale behind this assignment is that, at least since Socrates, philosophy has taken a dialogic form. When we write philosophy we often forget the fact that we are in dialogue with authors that have developed the ideas and positions we are using to construct an argument: a supported argument is very much one in which that dialogical component takes centre stage. This assignment will help you engage with the dialogical component of philosophy in two ways: first, because your video will ultimately consist in a dialogue with one of your peers; and secondly because you will have to engage with a particular philosopher s perspective by placing it in dialogue with another philosopher s. You will work in pairs, and you will film an imaginary dialogue between two of the philosophers you have studied in the first part of the course. Each of you will be a philosopher (e.g. Ian Hacking and Bas Van Fraassen, or Hilary Putnam and Ian Hacking etc.). Think broadly: you may consider philosophers from the suggested readings, as well as those covered in the required readings. How would your chosen philosophers respond to each other s ideas? For example, how would Ian Hacking use his entity realism to respond to Bas van Fraassen s empirical adequacy? It will be useful to make a short literature search and see whether the two philosophers you have chosen did interact in print (this is the case, for example, of Hacking and Van Fraassen). You can use the literature and the further readings as a springboard for your discussion. One of the things you might want to think creatively about is how to resolve your argument at the end of the video. Does one of the two parties have to retreat and be defeated, necessarily? Are there any alternatives? You are welcome to be creative, but note that you will not be assessed on the quality of your filming (just make sure the video is good enough to be watched and followed for this purpose it will be OK to use a good camera on your phone or your computer camera). You can film and edit the video down to five minutes, or rehearse until you get the timing right. Keep in mind that you will need a clear structure behind your discussion don t just improvise, but be prepared! You will submit your videos on a pen drive in the STS departmental office. As a back-up, you can

10 upload your videos on a private Vimeo or You Tube account, so that I will be able to open them in case anything happen to your files on the pen drive. The essay is due on Monday 3 April at 23:59. The essay must be submitted via Turn-It-In. The date of Moodle submission will count as the official submission date. It is essential that you submit your essay on time. If you do not, or you are not granted a formal extension, penalties apply for late submissions as outlined in the STS Student Handbook. All final versions of the essay must be word processed. Penalties for over-length coursework apply as described in the STS Student Handbook. The essay must explore topics in greater depth than in class lectures. Essays should not be based solely on class notes and required reading materials. You should also focus on further readings and also feel free to use material not on the reading lists. The essay must include footnotes and a bibliography. Please note that the essay should NOT provide an overview or a summary of the topic. Try to be focused in answering the essay question, and to articulate your answer by considering the main thesis, possible objections to it and possible replies to those objections. The aim of a philosophy essay is to help you to develop critical and argumentative skills by 1. giving an accurate description of the main philosophical thesis; 2. being able to give a fair and not-question-begging criticism of it in the light of the literature, and 3. being able to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the view in question and possible ways of defending it (even if you personally may think that it is untenable). Criteria for assessment The departmental marking guidelines for individual items of assessment can be found in the STS Student Handbook. Aims & objectives The course explores some recent debates in general philosophy of science, including: realism and antirealism about scientific theories, scientific explanation, laws of nature, reductionism and the unity of science. It also addresses some areas that are beyond analytical philosophy of science, such as historical epistemology and the American Pragmatist tradition. After this course, students should possess a fairly well-rounded view of the field, as well as a set of skills that will allow them to work further on their own.

11 General Reading List The textbook for this course, in which you can find most of the required readings and many of the further readings, is Martin Curd, J. A. Cover and Christopher Pincock (eds.) (2013) Philosophy of Science: the Central Issues (New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company). The first edition (1998) is generally fine, but if you have to make a choice go for the second edition (the commentary has been revised, and there are a few more useful readings)! This is an anthology of classic readings, with helpful introductions, notes and commentary by the editors. It is available for purchase at Waterstone s, and several copies are also in the UCL Libraries. Any reading not included in the above textbook is available in the UCL Science Library and/or Main Library. Articles are available through UCL Reading Lists. Sources for background and general reference: Introductory textbooks A. F. Chalmers (1982) What is this thing called science? (Milton Keynes: The Open University Press), ch. 1-8 Carl. G. Hempel (1966) Philosophy of Natural Science (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall) Alexander Bird (1998) Philosophy of science (McGill Queen s University Press). James Ladyman (2002) Understanding Philosophy of Science (New York: Routledge) Alan Musgrave (1993) Common sense, science and scepticism: a historical introduction to the theory of knowledge (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press). Samir, Okasha (2002) Philosophy of Science: A very short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press Y. Balashov and Alex Rosenberg (2002) Philosophy of science: contemporary readings (New York: Routledge). Peter Godfrey-Smith (2003) Theory and Reality (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press). More advanced texts with general relevance to this course Statis Psillos (1999) Scientific realism: how science tracks truth (New York: Routledge). Stathis Psillos (2002) Causation and Explanation (Chesham: Acumen). Ian Hacking (1983) Representing and Intervening (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Nancy Cartwright (1983) How the laws of physics lie (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Peter Lipton (1991) Inference to the best explanation (New York: Routledge) Wesley Salmon (1989) Four decades of scientific explanation (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press). Bas van Fraassen (1980) The scientific image (Oxford: Clarendon Press). John Dupré (1993) The Disorder of Things. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Peter Galison and David J. Stump (1996), The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts, and Power (Stanford: Stanford University Press). Hasok Chang (2012), Is Water H 2 O? Evidence, Realism and Pluralism. Dordrecht: Springer.

12 Anthologies R. Boyd, P. Gasper, and J. D. Trout (eds.) (1991) The Philosophy of Science (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press). P. M. Churchland and C. A. Hooker (eds.) (1985) Images of science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). J. Leplin (ed.) (1984) Scientific Realism (Berkeley: University of California Press). D. Papineau (ed.) (1996) The Philosophy of Science (Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press). F. Weinert (1995) Laws of nature. Essays on the philosophical, historical and scientific dimension (De Gruyter: Berlin). J. W. Carroll (ed.) (2004) Readings on laws of nature (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press). David Papineau (ed.) (1996), The Philosophy of Science: Oxford Readings in Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press. References The Oxford Companion to Philosophy ed. By Ted Honderich (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995) Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy ed. By Edward Craig (London: Routledge, 1998). Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy A Companion to the Philosophy of Science ed. by W. H. Newton-Smith (Blackwell Publishing). Course expectations Students are expected to attend the lectures and tutorials, complete the assignments by the due dates and do the assigned readings in preparation for the weekly tutorials.