| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | {{stub}}
| + | The '''philosophy of science''' is that branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of scientific inquiry. In its broadest form, its goal is to answer the question: "What is science?" Its subdisciplines, including [[Philosophy of physics]], [[Philosophy of biology]], [[Philosophy of psychology]], aim to understand and help inform the conceptual underpinnings of their various branches of science. |
| − | The analysis of scientific concepts and [[methodology]], which concerns itself mostly with the foundations of [[science]] and interdisciplinary areas. Most influential philosophers of Science include Sir [[Karl Popper]]. | + | |
| | + | In no way should '''philosophy of science''' be confused with [[Natural philosophy]]; the latter was the name given to what we would now call "science" through the end of the Enlightenment. |
| | + | |
| | + | __TOC__ |
| | + | |
| | + | ==History== |
| | + | |
| | + | The philosophy of science comes on the scene following the development of the [[Vienna circle]] of philosophers. Encouraged by the recent successes in many areas of scientific inquiry, some of these philosophers made an effort to codify and define science. |
| | + | |
| | + | ===Verificationism=== |
| | + | Early efforts to codify scientific reasoning center around a principle of '''verification'''. The slogan would go something like this: |
| | + | |
| | + | "A sentence is scientific if and only if it is verifiable; that is, if there is an empirical observation which can be made that supports that sentence." |
| | + | |
| | + | Given this definition, the sentence "Hillary Clinton is wearing a pantsuit on 4 July 2008 at 3:55 PM" would be scientific, while the sentence "There is an undetectable unicorn in the yard right now" would not be. |
| | + | |
| | + | Of course, this definition expands the range of science from the layperson's characterization of Serious Persons in Lab Coats, probably holding clipboards; but it is -- according to [[AJ Ayer]] -- a necessary condition for scientific validity. |
| | + | |
| | + | ====Objections==== |
| | + | |
| | + | An obvious objection is one formulated by [[Karl Popper]]: the doctrine of verificationism cannot be used to disallow theories whose projections are always verifiable. His chosen example is Freudian [[psychoanalysis]]. Popper claims that there is no behavior which cannot be explained by a Freudian theory. Now, on the one hand, this might seem like a good result: surely a theory that predicts everything in its bailiwick is a good theory! But Popper's point is actually more subtle than this: Freudian psychoanalysis predicts ''too much''. |
| | + | |
| | + | ===Falsificationism=== |
| | + | |
| | + | |
| | + | |
| | | | |
| | See: | | See: |