|
For the Week of 12/3/08 |
Assignment 13-Last One
Philosophy of Science Primer
Those who have given
presentations need to get me a one page thing I can post on the web. Just extract one juicy tid bitÉ If you
have a picture that is interestingÉ just throw it in a .doc and point out some
details and how those details relate to your topic. Nothing too complicated and definitely donÕt give me
anything boring. I want these
asap.
Some of the big questions:
Do we believe in science like we
believe in religion?
How does belief in the
heliocentric theory differ from faith in some religious idea?
Does a mathematically expressed
law of nature like F=ma simply model nature or is it actually how nature
acts? By this I mean, is Nature
mathematical. If so, is Nature
like Plato would like us to believe, that Truth is mathematics (or at least one
aspect of truth is Mathematics), and that our vulgar perception of reality is
just a vague coincidental shadow-puppet show crudely derived from reality?
If we allow F=ma or the equation
of universal gravity F=GMm/r2 to be a Law of Nature (disregarding
all the historical dp/dt issues), then how do we account for EinsteinÕs
modifications to these. Do his
observations on measurement (Special and General Relativity Theory) make Newton
wrong, or just a special case of EinsteinÕs theory? Similarly, if we allow NewtonÕs force equations to be laws
that are just a little fuzzy around the edges, how do we catagorize PtolemyÕs
very workable cosmological model that uses the geometrical (gear-like)
mathematics of epicycles on epicycles on circles, which in my mind are much
like a Taylor series approximation which gets more and more accurate as you map
out more and more terms of the infinite series.
Even more troubling, we could
quite easily do a coordinate transformation and map all astronomical motions
from a stationary earth whose center is (0, 0, 0). É or consider the ÒfactÓ that we no longer think that the
center of the cosmos is the sun?
In some sense, EinsteinÕs theories of relativities make the idea of a
center rather absurd. If the
history of cosmology was essentially geocentric up until the 16th
century, and it was heliocentric until the 20th centruryÉ is cosmology
now egocentric? (IÕm told that the
70s was/were the Me generation.)
AndÉ isnÕt ÒegoÓ just another arrangement of Ògeo?Ó – g-e-o-Émove the ÒeÓ overÉ
– e-g-oÉ MustÕnt that mean something? Have we come full circle and donÕt even know it? [Sorry for freaking you out but I
couldnÕt resist.]
Is a ÒtrueÓ theory an less true
if it was considered differently by its forumlator or by us, now? IÕm specifically thinking of how Kepler
thought of his three laws and how we think of his three laws. He doesnÕt even think of his three laws
as a set of three laws. Only later
did someone (perhaps Newton) extract the three gems from KeplerÕs work. He was headed for a totally different
goal than what later physicists were going after.
Is mathematical truth really
Truth.
As scientists and engineers how
do you deal with the God concept?
In general, how do you think the relationship between religion and
science has changed between then and now?
Has religion changedÉ has the definition of God changed, É have both
changedÉ how?
These
are just a few of the questions that I can think of off the top of my
head. I may add some more as I
think of them.
Finish reading the Westfall biography of
Newton over break.
Read this overview of HumeÕs
thoughts on inductive reasoning (and a few other tidbits): Hume_ProblemsWithInduction.htm
Hume (1711-1776) [I donÕt know where this outline came fromÉ a
philosopher-friend of mine sent it to me years ago and I then modified it. If
you refer to it in an essay, make up some sort of citation that makes sense, or
find a more credible source and cite that.]
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
A little scienceÉ.
PascalÕs Theorem a.k.a. Hexagrammum
Mysticum Theorem: Any arbitrary hexagon inscribed in a conic ellipse (or
circle of course), if the opposite sides are extended, the three intersection
points will be in a single line.
Here is a nice little demo of PascalÕs Theorem: demo 1. Here is another: demo 2.
[None of the descriptions of this theorem are all that clear. I think what this means is that if you
connect the perimeter of any hexagon inscribed in an ellipse and extend the
opposite sides,(meaning sides 1 & 4, 2 & 5, and 3 & 6) there will
be 3 intersections and those intersections will all be on the same line.
Additionally, the hexagon does not need to be openÉ meaning that the perimeter
can actually cross itselfÉ meaning (I think) that if you put 6 points anywhere
on an ellipse and extend from each point two lines to any two other points,
that there will always be 3 intersections of these extended lines and that
those 3 intersections will always be on the same line. Now, upon further investigation, I
suspect that a regular hexagon inscribed in a circle will live outside of this
theorem, as opposite sides are parallel and ought to never intersect, but none
of the write-ups of this thm. (that I, admittedly, found on the internets)
mention this... WhatÕs with that?
Somebody figure this out.]
A little religionÉ
Wiki-derived story – faith and Blaise Pascal (1623-1662):
Soon before Pascal wrote his famous PensŽes, the book which contains his famous wager, his religion was reinforced by an apparent miracle that occurred in the chapel of the Port-Royal nunnery. His 10-year-old niece, Marguerite PŽrier, was suffering from a painful fistula lacrymalis [recall the anal fistula we discussed earlier in the term] that exuded a nasty bad-smelling pus through her eyes and nose—an affliction the doctors pronounced hopeless. On March 24, 1657, a believer presented to Port-Royal what he and others claimed to be a thorn from the crown that had tortured Christ. The nuns, in solemn ceremony and singing psalms, placed the thorn on their altar. Each in turn kissed the relic, and one of them, seeing Marguerite among the worshipers, took the thorn and with it touched the girl's sore. That evening, we are told, Marguerite expressed surprise that her eye no longer pained her; her mother was astonished to find no sign of the fistula; a physician, summoned, reported that the discharge and swelling had disappeared. He, not the nuns, spread word of what he termed a miraculous cure. Seven other physicians who had had previous knowledge of Marguerite's fistula signed a statement that in their judgment a miracle had taken place. The diocesan officials investigated, came to the same conclusion, and authorized a Te Deum [laudamus] [We praise Him, the Lord] Mass in Port-Royal. Crowds of believers came to see and kiss the thorn; all of Catholic Paris acclaimed a miracle. Later, both Jansenists [a sect to which Pascal belonged] and Catholics used this well-documented miracle to their defense. In 1728, Pope Benedict XIII referred to the case as proving that the age of miracles had not passed. Pascal made himself an armorial emblem of an eye surrounded by a crown of thorns, with the inscription Scio cui credidi—"I know whom I have believed." His beliefs renewed, he set his mind to write his final, unfinished testament, the PensŽesÉ see PascalÕs wager belowÉ.
Read Blaise PascalÕs famous wager,
section 233, from his book, PensŽes: PensŽes
– SECTION III: OF THE NECESSITY OF THE WAGER. Poke around the internet or in the
recesses of your own mind and come up with some objections and objections to
the objections to PascalÕs Wager.
Everybody read the following. This is confusing stuff. I highly recommend that you jot down notes as you read
this. I suggest you organize your
notes by philosopher. I basically
want you to get a feel for what has gone on in the past 80 years or so.
–Gregory_ProgressRationalityScience-720KB.pdf 3pp- Introduction
–Baum_Popper-Kuhn-Lakatos-1.5MB.pdf 5pp- AlrightÉ.
prove it!
–Popper's
Falsification Essay: 6pp- This is the philosopher Karl Popper on
his famous theory of falsfication.
–Hull_Studying_Science_Scientifically.htm
12pp- This outlines several philosophies of
science: Age, birth order, and novel predictions. Skim over the first few pages
and then read closely when you get to the part on PlanckÕs Principle.
–Pajares-Synopsis of Kuhn's SSR
8pp- This is a very abbreviated outline of
Thomas KuhnÕs The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions- by Frank Pajares, from the
Philosopher's Web Magazine. KuhnÕs
book is probably the most famous work on the philosophy of science in the past
50 or even 100 years. Keep in
mind, this is 8 pages long, and the book is over 200 pages long. You miss some of the subtleties of his
argument in this form.
Sokal and the Hoax
SokalÕs now famous
(or infamous depending on your point of view) essay in the journal Social Text in 1996
set off a huge hub-ubb in academic and intellectual circles. [Outside of these circles, it is pretty
much irrelevant, but it is rather interesting all the same.]
1) First, read
the Alland review of his book and the Boghossian PDF describing the
situation. These both cover much
of the same turf, so you can sort of skim the second one you read. Both of these tell the basic story.
Alland is more favorable and Boghossian more suspicious.
2) Then look at
his original article from 1996 that got everybody so pissed off. Notice that
most of the article is footnotes and citations and references. The articleÕs body is only 15pp.
3) Then (optionally)
read an excerpt from SokalÕs book.
This gives a good flavor of his general thought.
Boghossian_Sokal_Hoax-1.4MB.pdf
9pp
and
Alland_Rev_of_Sokal-172KB.pdf
4pp
and
look at this
Sokal_Transgressing...SocialTextHoax-756KB.pdf
This
is the actual article that started the whole hub-ub,
ÒTransgressing
the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity.Ó
I
donÕt expect you to actually read all of it, but find a section, a few pages,
and see what you can make of it.
ÉoptionalÉ
Here
is a section from Fashionable Nonsense.
It is pretty funny stuff.
Sokal_Fashionable_NonSense_Lacan-2MB.pdf
Write an essay. This stuff is made for essay
writing. As usual, impress me by
actually referring to the readings, as many as you can. Be sure to summarize
the gist of the author you are discussing. For the Òsouped-upÓ essays you could try to analyze things
we have studied in this class in terms of some of these philosophers and/or you
can dig into some of the materials listed below.
Citations
Alland, Alexander. "Don't
Cut the Pi Yet! (Review of Sokal and Bricmont's Fashionable Nonsense)." American
Anthropologist 100, no. 4 (1998): 1026-1029. Alland_Rev_of_Sokal-172KB.pdf
Baum, Robert F. "Popper,
Kuhn, Lakatos: A Crisis of Modern Intellect." In Science & Culture in the Western
Tradition: Sources and Interpretations, ed. John G. Burke, pp. 274-279.
Scottsdale, Ariz.: Gorsuch Scarisbrick, 1987. Baum_Popper-Kuhn-Lakatos-1.5MB.pdf
Boghossian, Paul. "Chapter
26: The Sokal Hoax." In Scientific Inquiry: Readings in the Philosophy of Science, ed. Robert
Klee, pp. 265-273. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Boghossian_Sokal_Hoax-1.4MB.pdf
Brush, Stephen G. "Should
the History of Science Be Rated X?" Science 183, no. 4130 (1974): 1164-1172. Brush1974_X-RatedScienceHistory-640KB.pdf
What will we tell the children?
Cartwright, Nancy. "The Metaphysics
of the Disunified World." Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science
Association 2 (1994): 357-364.
Cartwright-Metaphysics_Disunified_World-268KB.pdf
Feyerabend, Paul. "Chapter
Viii: How to Defend Society against Science." In Scientific Revolutions, ed. Ian Hacking,
pp. 156-167. New York: Oxford University Press, 1981. Feyerabend_DefendAgainstScience-1.7MB.pdf Sticking it to the Man.
Gregory, Frederick.
"Progress and the Rationality of Science." In Science & Culture in the Western
Tradition: Sources and Interpretations, ed. John G. Burke, pp. 263-265.
Scottsdale, Ariz.: Gorsuch Scarisbrick, 1987. Gregory_ProgressRationalityScience-720KB.pdf
Hessen, B. The Social and Economic Roots of Newton's
'Principia'. New York: Howard Fertig, 1971. Hessen-Marx-and-Newton-3.1MB.pdf There are several essays in this
PDF. This stuff is what they call
ÒwhackÓ these days. You might find
it interesting all the same. These
are Marxist analyses of Newton and SciRev and Industrial Rev. topics. Those with an interest in political
theory may find this interesting even if you donÕt agree with it.
Hull, David L. "Planck's
Principle." Science
202, no. 17 (1978): 717-723. Hull_PlancksPrinciple-4.1MB.pdf This is outlined in the other Hull
reading, but this has the details and methods better explained. DonÕt trust anybody over 30.
Hull, David L. "Studying
the Study of Science Scientifically." Perspectives on Science 6, no. 3 (1998):
209-231. Hull_Studying_Science_Scientifically.htm
Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.
This is perhaps the most influential book in the philosophy of science of the
last 100 years. We just donÕt have time to read it. You library must have this.
Kuhn, Thomas S. "What Are
Scientific Revolutions?" In The Probabilistic Revolution, ed. Lorenz
KrŸger, Lorraine Daston and Michael Heidelberger, pp. 7-21. Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press, 1987. Kuhn_WhatAreSciRevs_ProbRev-2.7MB.pdf
Oberg, Barbara Bowen. "David
Hartley and the Association of Ideas." Journal of the History of Ideas 37, no. 3
(1976): 441-454. Oberg-Hartley_Association_of_Ideas-424KB.pdf
Oldroyd, D. R. "Some
'Philosophicall Scribbles' Attributed to Robert Hooke." Notes and Records
of the Royal Society of London 35, no. 1 (1980): 17-32. Oldroyd-Philosophicall_Scribbles-Hooke-428KB.pdf
Sokal, Alan D., and J. Bricmont.
Fashionable
Nonsense : Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science. New York: Picador
USA, 1998. Sokal_Fashionable_NonSense_Lacan-2MB.pdf
Back to Syllabus [SciRev Fall
2008]
Me – scirevf08@mifami.org
Extra Fun
What is going on here:
How is Pascal working here?
Explain it to me with diagrams
and writing and get a point or 3.
Éor hereÉ
Review Materials
Philosophy_of_Science-Notes-review-955KB.pdf
- chaos
Posted: 12/6/08 5:29
PM