How Does Science Work? Three Views (Part 3-1)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 лют 2025
- A quick look at three core elements of science: empiricism, mathematical modeling and the social structure of science.
(Sorry some of the editing is choppy, I had to cut 2 minutes to fit the time limit.)
This is the first part in my introduction to the philosophy of science. Up next: the rise and fall of logical positivism
Closing music: "It Will All Make Sense in the Morning" by Halou
Haha how timely that you are releasing this right now (given the recent Veritas48/League of Reason stuff).
Loving it by the way! More, please.
I'm looking forward to the rest of the series. I hope it goes on for many years. There's certainly enough to discuss in this topic - Popper, Kuhn, responses to Kuhn from Scheffler or Feyerabend, the search for objectivity, science wars...
Thanks for taking the time to educate us, which is something you usually get paid for. I know gratitude doesn't buy much, but you got mine. ;-)
I'll be interested in watching the next video.
If only because I'm very much unconvinced that logical positivism warranted 'falling' at all.
Appreciate your videos man
@synsei1 Nicely put. But for a long time, it was thought to be one or the other. What do we do, for example, when one leg wants to go one way and the other another?
nice video. I had never have someone explain science in that way, trying to achieve balanance between empirical evidence, math , and social structures.
Fantastic series so far. The past dichotomy between experience and reason is quite interesting; from having done plenty of experiments myself,it's easy for me to see how experience and reason go hand-in-hand but in earlier times, certainly it wouldn't have been as obvious.
Wonderful, wonderful video. If I were teaching a philosopy of science class this would probably be the first thing I'd show them.
Excellent introduction.
Great video Sisyphus, its a real shame what eventually happened to Ignaz Semmelweiss. He eventually had a nervous breakdown, was committed and died in an asylum at age 47.
Good series. I look forward to the rest of it.
Epistemology is my favorite branch of philosophy (btw).
@insidetrip101 Rest assured, I will be coming back to these. Empiricism will get a grilling in the next two videos on the rise and fall of logical positivism. The issue with the social structure will be addressed by Kuhn, Lakatos and Feyerabend.
Excellent video. I'm really looking forward to the remainder of your series.
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”
Max Planck
@labarum312 Einstein once said that he knew relativity was true, long before it was empirically tested, because "it was so beautiful." Such aesthetic judgments are clearly part of the psychology of actual scientists. Whether or not it's good scientific methodology is another question. Occam's razor seems like an aesthetic judgment, and scientists use that all the time. I should be addressing this later on.
Great video, I cannot wait for the next one. I feel like I am getting a college level education on the philosophy of science :]
@FHomeBrew "Just because we don't know something doesn't mean it's not true or false in reality."
Sometimes it does, as in Schrodinger's Cat. But even that aside, we need logic that maps more than just what is the case; we need logic to map what we know and what we don't. Hence, multiple valued and fuzzy logics are very helpful.
Made me think. Thanks for this, I especially liked the social structure of science.
I was curious of what your opinion would be in the idea of "aesthetic" judgements in science. Here I am thinking of the mathematical end of things where sometimes one theory might be favored over a competitor based upon the "elegance" or "beauty" of the equations.
@ScepticalAgnostic Well, there's pretty near universal agreement that it was fatally flawed (although clearly they were right about some things.) But the next video will be the rise, the one after that will be the fall (or at least that's what I'm visualizing at the moment.)
@thunderbolt94 Well, the book I mention at the beginning of this video would probably be my first recommendation: "Theory and Reality" by Peter Godfrey-Smith. Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" is probably the most important book in the field in the last 80 years. It's a bit dense, but really, really thought provoking. Eliot Sober's "Philosophy of Biology" does a good job of covering both the specific issues in biology and philosophy of science in general.
Great stuff. Enjoyed it and I feel that I'm learning from you so thanks for that.
@Disthron I'll touch on this when I talk about Thomas Kuhn. In short, there are good reasons to resist changing course too abruptly, since anomalies are not counterexamples. If we rejected theories every time we found evidence that contradicted it, we would never accept any theories at all. It takes time to figure out how all the pieces fit.
Nice video! I'm loving this series.
@CousinoMacul Thanks, I hope you continue to do so.
Absolutely great video. This video completely makes up for your video where we had went back in forth in your video to jericomovie. This video has earned you my respect (even though I still think you're wrong when it comes to our argument).
Btw, I'm actually interested in reading some books on philosophy of science. Any recommendations you would offer?
@nakedapedude Yeah, I hate the fact that I stutter. It's not deliberate. I even edit some of it out, where I can. When I don't have a solid script, when I'm just going off of bullet points I extemporize and trip over my own thoughts. Something I need to work on.
@SisyphusRedeemed I don't really mind the stuttering. What I love is the excitement and interest that your voice projects, which is probably there because you're kind of winging it. So if it turns out that one of them follows the other, please keep them both :)
One thing I'd be really interested in is to which extent the humanities are viewed as scientific and to which extent their writings are considered evidential or conclusive. As you probably know, over here in Europe (Germany, to be more precise), we make no distinction between humanities and science, just calling the one thing "Naturwissenschaft" (science of nature) and the other "Geisteswissenschaft" (science of the mind). Do you know any good sources where I could read up a bit on that?
@MasterOhSo Absolutely, mirror away. Glad you liked it. Hope you like the rest of the series.
Ah yes, in the context of that part of the video the four thinkers I listed on the side of reason could fairly be called 'rationalists.' In that context they mean the same.
@jericomovie Yeah, I think we probably agree on quite a lot. But at the same time, it was fun for our first encounter to be a debate. We each make the other have to think a little more, which is always a good thing, in my book.
@LunarPoet I agree. His enthusiasm is contagious (or should b).
@FHomeBrew And Russell is wrong.
"Never have we experienced that defies logic." It depends on which logic we're using. Classical logic is defied by quantum mechanics.
"Mathematical statements always have a clear true/false value."
Not all of them. Many statements are better assessed using multiple valued logics.
SisyphusRedeemed agreed. Probability comes to mind. What do you think about Bayes' theorem?
Can I ask why you present Empiricism with "Math" as opposed to presenting the term Rationalism, or "innate ideas" that were associated with Descartes? This, in my experience, is a more common way of presenting the intellectual divide in the 18th century that was quelled by Kant, and I'm curious why it wasn't mentioned in this video.
Professor, what are your thoughts on "The invention of modern science" by Isabelle Stengers?
@LordOfNothingreally there is no implication of order in the statement. It just says an AND, the speaker wants both those things to be true simultaneously. Order is irrelevant.
@TheHeather1985 I couldn't do a whole series. Maybe one vid. But it's not something that falls into my area of competence.
Great summary I enjoyed all episodes and might teach it in another language as well.
@LordOfNothingreally I've actually been thinking about doing a vid on cliches that piss me off. That one wasn't on the list, but the ones that are will get a similar treatment.
very informative - again
great video :)
Love the videos.
Do you know of any good videos about the history of particular fields of science?
Something like what potholer54 does for cosmology.
You show that humorous cartoon showing how science works. Two historical things haunt me a bit with this justification. You mention one in a previous video regarding how useful and impressively accurate Ptomely's ideas were and related is the Greek's abilities to accurately predict the movement of the stars and planets. While both of these ideas "worked", obviously they had no idea how nature really operated and really didn't accurately represent reality.
@AEVautomatic It's 'Sisyphus', after the Greek myth, and later the existentialist essay by Albert Camus.
@crazypills2 Ah, and I see you have your own series on this topic! Very cool, I'll check them out.
Hmmm, I didn't understand your last sentence, but from 07:37 it looks like you were just using the term "reason" where I would have thought to say "rationalism," referring to Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz.
@SisyphusRedeemed: Thanks a lot for the answer! I always wondered how we could put the same label that we put on physics, mathematics and chemistry on research that is for the most part based on ideological instead of evidential examination and lacks in the peer-review-department (though the humanities clearly deserve a place in the academic world).
@LudditeRomantic "'peer review' can also be a mechanism by which the voice of heretics is silenced :( "
Paul Feyerabend will speak to this concern. I suspect you'll like what he has to say.
@TheCriticalTwins Yeah, the German 'Wissenschaft' creates a LOT of confusion when German writings are being translated into English. Many of the logical positivists came from Germany and Austria, so their writings were key in this. Karl Popper is probably the key player in the discussion over the 'problem of demarcation' (how to distinguish science from pseudoscience.) In short, humanities are not going to qualify as 'science' in this discussion.
@polymath7
II.
Anyway, short story long, "giants" may well be a thinly veiled mocking reference to Hooke's stature (he was extremely short and may have been a dwarf).
@theantithesis1 Yeah, that's a sentiment that Thomas Kuhn will find very sympathetic. Good quote.
@dubaipete Thanks, that's very high praise.
"OK, you can have your watch back...."
I'm not sure I get that, but it's very odd; I was actually considering auctioning my watch off for the MSF charity event.
@SisyphusRedeemed
I.
Oh, and though you probably already know this, I can't resist mentioning that that famous quote from Newton may be misleading.
On the face of it it may sound like a grandly poetic expression of humility, but it may in fact be a prime example of Newton's notorious dickishnesss.
It comes from a letter to his rival Robert Hooke, with whom Newton had various disputes over priority in optics, gravitation and even calculus (I'm not confusing him with Leibniz here) ....
Rationalism is a player in epistemology generally, but not in science or philosophy of science. Perhaps we can know things by the light of reason itself, but I know of no one who proposes that we cannot know scientific facts that way.
I can't say I do. I'd like to make a few such videos myself, but I have had no time these last few months.
@MobileThinker Hmm, don't believe I've heard of that book. Thanks for the reference, I'll try to look it up.
Yes, I do. In fact, I once wrote a column on it.
@TanTanDaDude Did you have a problem viewing the video?
@SisyphusRedeemed
I think your delivery is fine. If you're anxious when recording maybe have a pint beforehand.
I do wish that in choosing your examples of the supposed stumblings of the scientific process you could have gone with something more recent.
Science as an institution was far less refined in the nineteenth century than it is today, and medicine in particular was less than scientific and in most cases considerably less than useless until well into the twentieth.
@riversonthemoon Very well said.
@FurieMan "What happens if i release a rock in mid air? It gets pulled to the earth!. lets call that gravity."
Well, of course science is more than just giving names to patterns in observations. Pointing out that 'stuff falls down' isn't yet doing science. But yeah, clearly some theists have an aversion to testing.
Is this an original video of yours or a random professor?
This whole series is mine. I use them in my philosophy of science course as part of a 'flipped classroom' model.
SisyphusRedeemed oh wow very impressed. PoS may be my favorite topic. What truths exist outside of science? Math/logic, ethics, what else?
11 months later and I'm still listening to this. Officially my favorite topic now.
How come Francis bacon is not one of your heroes?
Fuckin' Science! HOW does that shit work? Good vid. Thumbs up.
You know Newton's quote was probably meant as a mocking insult because his "adversary" Hooke had a hunch^^
@SisyphusRedeemed I guess but what you said happened to the guy in the video seems like too far in the other extream.
@FHomeBrew
That quote is from Bertrand Russel, not Einstein. And I don't at all agree with you about the epistemic primacy of mathematics.
I usually wouldn't be so pernickety (especially on the internet), its just that I think you're a really smart guy so I was REALLY sad when I heard you say this; "have our cake and eat it too". This is wrong (and also entirely possible). You can have your cake and eat it to. Here is my cake! Doesn't it look nice? Good enough to eat, I bet! Yum, yum, yum! All gone! I just had my cake and ate it to. Now, where is my cake? I want my cake! But its GONE! I want to...EAT MY CAKE AND HAVE IT TOO!!!
@SisyphusRedeemed It, by far, is the worst cliche ever. Seeing you use it strikes me in the very heart, and I can only hope time will heal it.
@FurieMan probably when it conflicts with their reason and social science :)
I was a little disappointed about your critique of empiricism. Not because I didn't think you explained why it is inadequate, but because SOOOOOOOOOO many think it is adequate and the debate ends their.
To some extent I was also disappointed about the lack of critique you had for the "social structure". What is to stop people from censoring someone? Doesn't this mean that since it is a social structure it is more about "the art of persuasion" (Rhetoric) than it is actually producing evidence?
So you teach this stuff to your students for a living. Then, out of the goodness of your heart, as a hobby you set about washing the ignorance out of our heads as well.
I'm sure we don't deserve it, and I'm certain you are not told often enough, but
Thankyou.
@SisyphusRedeemed Just slow your speaking down. It sounds a bit rushed and pressured. Maybe if you took 10 minutes to relax before hand, you could calm yourself and deliver a more relaxed presentation. Great video though, thanks for the info!
@SisyphusRedeemed
I love your videos and am fascinated with this particular subject but may I humbly suggest that your presentation could be improved vastly if your could somehow escape the stuttering. Correct me if I'm wrong but It doesn't sound like a speech impediment, more like an affectation and I can only speak for myself but it annoys the hell out of me. I hope I managed to put that in a way so as to cause the least amount of offence as offence is not my intention.
I don't think you actually went into why if evidence contradicts the establishment why the establishment doesn't accept it. Specially if it is proven accurate. I mean it seems like it's just pride and politics.
@LordOfNothingreally HAHAHA!!!
I said almost exactly the same thing about that very expression on another of his videos. I wonder if you're subconsciously repeating it?
Some science works some of the time
Experience or reason ? You can't really walk without one of these two legs.
Cool name Sisyphus Redeemed
that's the big question - can Sisyphus be Redeemed
You are optimistic
ironic name for a author of a scines book...
"..a mechanism by which the voice of heretics is silenced..."
No.
Not really.
This almost never happens. Not in such a way as to merit the severity of your language.
I'm subscribed to your channel and I like your videos, but when you say something like this you're exactly half done.
Now you've got to cite examples. Specific examples.
And of course, though it's trite to note it can't go unremarked that the examples you'll be able to name will by necessity be those science has corrected.
fucking science, how does it work?
@SisyphusRedeemed If you just try to speak slower, much will improve by itself, I believe...
Oh shit, who cares? Not me ;-)
Peer review has become a joke
The tricky thing about peer review: you only really notice it when it breaks down. When it's working properly you don't really see it (unless you're the author or the reviewer). Thus, it's really hard to tell exactly how well it is working. But yeah, there is certainly cause for concern.
Isn't 'science' easily explained as imparting understanding by explaining it simply to a barmaid? Once the explanation and understanding are grasped science is done. Nothing new to learn here, time to move on.
If not then I imagine I must be doing science whenever I was my hands. Whenever I look at the metal filings on the paper above my magnets I must be doing science because nobody has explained what the "field" is or how it works. I'm still waiting for the sciences to look into that little mystery and explain how we can tap in to that understanding without using the words field, line, wave, particle...