Philosophy of Science

Philosophy of Science

Question 1 

The science of explanation exists due to human nature of curiosity which led to conception of theories like the deductive-nomological model. Humans strive to improve their strategic position in the world through prediction and controlling how things turn-out in future. Also, humans yearn to understand they live in and the existing phenomenon which has significantly contributed to the interminable science advancement. Since pre-history, scholars have strived to makes sense from these phenomena which bore to terms such as scientific explanation and empirical science trying to answer the why question. Hempel and other scientists developed the deductive-nomological model in the quest to answer some of the scientific phenomena like Newton’s law of gravity. The model uses an approach where the scientific explanations infer a statement describing the phenomena to be explained which is referred to as the “explanandum” from a statement known as “the explanans”. Notably, the explanandum is a deductive consequence of the explanans. Hempel (2002) argued that through experiments, one should be able to derive all possible deliverables and identify the solution for any doubts that may occur. The scholar defended the model as he believed it was the answer to human curiosity since empirical of science ought to at least give probable if not accurate data of experiments outcomes. 

The deductive-nomological model is used to explain why the world operates how it does like why the earth revolves in orbit around the sun. For instance, John Dewey explains one of his observations when washing dishes. The scholar notices that bubbles appear from under glasses rims removed from the hot soapy water, the bubbles grew then receded inside the glass. As a scientist, Dewey explained that “Transferring the tumblers to the plate, he had trapped cool air in them; that air was gradually warmed by the glass, which initially had the temperature of the hot suds. This led to an increase in the volume of the trapped air, and thus to an expansion of the soap film that had formed between the plate and the tumblers’ rims. But gradually, the glass cooled off, and so did the air inside, and as a result, the soap bubbles receded” (Hempel, 2002, pp. 336). Like most scientific phenomena, this scientific event (explanans) had an explanation (the explanandum) which explains why the bubbles in the glass behaved in a certain way. The general laws derived from the experiment ascertain this as a deductive-nomological explanation which leads to a deductive embodiment of the explanandum. Laws play a vital role in this model as they connect the explanandum to the events mentioned in the explanans. 

Finally, although Brown’s deductive-nomological view examines its strengths in capturing regularities and predicting outcomes, it however highlights an objection: it struggles with explaining unique or contingent events that lack universally applicable laws. This limitation raises questions about its adequacy for understanding complex, context-dependent phenomena, and underscores the need for alternative explanatory frameworks in such cases.   

Question 2 

The debate on the role values play in science has existed for more than 50 years with most scholars arguing that only epistemic values have a legitimate role in the world of science. Some philosophers however believed that non-epistemic like social, ethical and political values have a role of normative standard in science. Douglas uses Hempel inductive risk to ascertain the belief that non-epistemic values are a vital part of scientific explanations especially when the inductive risk involves includes threats of non-epistemic concerns. The inductive risk concept by Hempel (2002), highlights that there is a chance that one is wrong by accepting or rejecting a science hypothesis. The scholar argued that value statements have no logical role to play in explaining and support of scientific statements as they cannot contribute to their sustenance or disconfirmation. Hempel argued that values can serve as presuppositions since no evidence can establish a hypothesis with certainty; this led to the inductive risk concept which the scholar explained such scientific statements. Although the inductive risk is present in scientists’ decision to assent a philosophy, it is not clear if they should consider or the consequences entailed in the concept (Douglas, 2000). Science is crucial in life and scientists should be cautious when affirming theories as they could have long-life hazardous consequences especially if the researcher is wrong. 

Non-epistemic values play a role in the scientific process; both epistemic and non-epistemic values play a role in selection of the challenge to pursue. Secondly, when scientific knowledge is directed to society, non-epistemic values are considered before induction. These values also limit on how methodologies are used for instance, how humans can be used in experimentation. In laboratory studies, rats are used as specimens in place of human subjects due to the detrimental risk involved. Using rats to determine the rate of toxicity of a chemical in humans could yield overestimated false positives or false negatives which means from the experiment there will be over regulation or under regulation of the said chemical. “because error is always a possibility, we are required to consider the con- sequences of error alongside the arguments concerning evidence. And the consideration of the consequences of error require the consideration of values, both epistemic and non-epistemic” (Douglas, 2000, pp. 564). In such cases where error seems to be inevitable, the scientist should consider the quantity of evidence or the degree of confirmation to evaluate the extent of the inductive risk. 

Question 3 

Scholars identify scientific realism as the doctrine through which human theories describe the world. Scientific realists and anti-realist continue on this classical philosophy debate and different types of realism are derived like metaphysical and epistemological realism. The epistemological realism argues that humans are justified to believe in the best scientific theories as they have the external world knowledge. The No Miracle Argument (NMA) remains the most prominent and positive squabble on scientific realism. The NMA reasons that scientific realism is the most logic explanation on the success of practical science. Scientific theories showcase why the world it is and why certain phenomena behave in certain manners, these scientists have successfully managed to derive successful theories which humans believes. Due to the uncontested success of science, it only makes sense to believe such theories and conception of science realism. Brown (1982) showcases that “The positive argument for realism is that it is the only philosophy that doesn't make the success of science a miracle. That terms in mature scientific theories typically refer (this formulation is due Richard Boyd), that the theories accepted in a mature science are typically approximately true, that the same term can refer to the same thing even when it occurs in different theories- these statements are viewed by the scientific realist not as necessary truths but as part of the only scientific explanation of the success of science, and hence as part of any adequate scientific description of science and its relations to its objects” (pp. 232). 

However, the world functions on various unpredictability which tend to conflict the scientific realism concept. For instance, the life magazine in the 1950s documented the exploding church story which challenged this belief. “Life magazine reported that all fifteen members of the church in Beatrice, Nebraska, due at choir practice at 7.20 were late the evening of 1 March 1950. The minister and daughter had one reason (his wife delayed to iron the dress); one girl waited to finish a geometry problem; one starts her car; another couldn't start her car; two lingered to end of an especially exciting radio program; one mother daughter were late because the mother had to call the daughter to wake her from a nap, and so on. The reasons seemed rather ordinary, but there were ten separate and quite unconnected the lateness of the fifteen persons. It was rather fortunate that none of the fifteen arrived on time at 7.20 p.m., for at 7.25 p.m. the church building was destroyed in an explosion. The members of the choir, Life reported, wondered if their delay was "an act of God” (Brown, 1982, pp. 235). While most common humans will relate this incidence to intervention of God, realists are likely to object on the principle of belief and insist that there must have been a common explanation. Clearly the debate on scientific realism and NMA will go on as some of the world forces remain more prevalent than empirical science.

References

Brown, J. R. (1982). The miracle of science. The Philosophical Quarterly (1950-), 32(128), 232-244. 

Douglas, H. (2000). Inductive risk and values in science. Philosophy of science, 67(4), 559-579. 

Hempel, C. (2002). Two models of scientific explanation.