Lectures Script. Psychology. P. 5

What is science?
It's a surprisingly hard

question to answer. I always think about a
mural in the Vatican painted by Raphael
in the 16th century. In this painting, we see the Greek philosopher, Aristotle,
holding his hand down to the earth and next to
him stands his teacher, Plato, who's pointing
his hand up to the sky. Rafael use these subtle
gestures to symbolize each philosopher's theory on the source of true knowledge.
For Plato, true knowledge
came from thinking about the ideal versions
of everything we see around us but for Aristotle, true knowledge came from
carefully observing
the world as it is, making him the first scientist. It wasn't until two
millennia later in 1833 that the historian, William Whewell, actually
coined the term scientist. Before then, people who studied nature were called
natural philosophers. In the centuries
between the lives of Aristotle and Whewell, more and more people
began studying the natural worlds intricacies through careful observation. But
science has arguably made even larger leaps in the
period since the 19th century. We now know the agent
constitution of the universe, the mechanisms of heredity
and infectious disease, we can split atoms and
we can build machines that write symphonies and
beat the best of us at chess. In other words, science has
become an enterprise that permeates all corners of humanity for better
and for worse. It's led to dramatic improvements in the lives of human beings, but
it's also led to much
misery and suffering. How is this progress being made? Is this even progress? Is it
real or is it an illusion? Our goal will be to
take a close look at how scientists today
generate knowledge. Along these lines, we'll
ask whether their methods are really as reliable and
objective as they seem. We'll also discuss whether
non-scientific values, such as moral codes, religions, or politics should play any
role in guiding the
scientific enterprise. Science is a word used in the public and political spheres.
In her 2016 Democratic
National Convention address, then presidential
candidate Hillary Clinton said, "I believe in science." Which was followed
by roaring applause. Then after the election
of Donald Trump, a hundreds of thousands of
people took to the streets all over the world for
the marches for science. These people all took
a strong stance for science but what does
that really mean? What are they marching for? Is it a method, a body of facts, a
set of values, a
group of individuals? Well, from the birth of careful empirical observation
with Aristotle, to the solitary studies
of Isaac Newton, to the observation of distant galaxies using the
world's largest telescopes, science has constantly evolved
and become more complex. Unlike centuries passed,
today science is a collaborative endeavor
taking place in nearly every country
across the world. All of this work costs
money, lots of it. In 2017, my home institution, the University of
Pennsylvania alone, spent nearly a billion
dollars on research projects. The majority of that money came from the federal
government, who will spend over $175 billion on research and
development in 2018. The industry also funds
millions of dollars of research at Penn and billions of dollars in the
United States overall. So what are the end products
of all the spending? Let's take a look at a
couple of recent examples. In 2017, scientists observed the merging of two neutron
stars for the first time. According to the
Journal of Science, it was easily the
most studied event in the history of
astronomy with 3,674 researchers from 953 institutions collaborating on a single
paper summarizing the merger
and its aftermath. The first image of the neutron
star merger was taken by the Swope telescope at the Las Campanas Observatory in
Chille that we see in this image. The observation
provided evidence to support Albert Einstein's
theory of general relativity, a theory that continues to be supported to this
day by observations. It also elucidated
the process by which heavy metals like mercury and lead are produced
in the universe. Last year, scientists also discovered more fossils
of our species. Fossils that led them to
believe Homo sapiens has been walking around
on this planet for not just a 100 thousand years, but 300 thousand years. In
another primate news, researchers also discovered
a new great ape species, an endangered orangutan
living in Indonesia. This was their first discovery of a living great ape
species in 90 years. In 2018, scientists began the first experiments
with humans using a genetic technique
called CRISPR-Cas9. Their aim was to modify human immune cells
to kill cancer. In that same year,
researchers also found that emissions of CFC-11
were on the rise again. This had been banned
all over the world in 1987 because it puts
holes in the ozone layer, which leads to more
ultraviolet radiation making it to the
surface of the Earth. Researchers have also
begun to investigate the many ways that bacteria
living in our guts, what scientists call
our Microbiome, might affect our physical
and mental health. Their preliminary studies have
shown that there could be some connection
between the microbiome and obesity and immune disorders. Researchers also suggests
that the microbiome may increase the risk of developing neuro-psychiatric illnesses
like schizophrenia, obsessive compulsive disorder,
ADHD, and chronic fatigue. It's a very new work and many scientists remain
very skeptical. But this is normal for such
a new research program. Studying the collision
of neutron stars, dating our fossil record,
measuring air pollutants, using genetic techniques
to cure cancer, linking gut bacteria
to illnesses, discovering a new orangutan. What do we think all of these disparate
activities
have in common? How did they fall under the
same heading, namely science? Every question I have so far posed is a
philosophical question. These are the questions asked
by philosophers of science. As we've already learned, science has its
origins in philosophy. But today, the
philosophy of science is a discipline that
asks what science is, how it works, and what role it should play in our society. So
many of the
decisions we make in life rely on scientific evidence, from the chemicals we decide
are safe to the way we
raise our children. So we better understand why we accept the evidence
in the first place. We should ask, "Is
scientific research really the best way to answer
the hard questions that society faces? Is it the only way?" The philosophical
analysis of science can elucidate answers
to these questions.

Lectures Script. Psychology. P. 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lectures Script. Psychology. P. 5

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lectures Script. Psychology. P. 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is science?

It's a surprisingly hard

You might also like