Assignment 01

Here is a list of a few books that deal with various examples of pseudo-science.

Broca's Brain - Carl Sagan
Fads and Fallacies in Name of Science - Martin Gardner
Science: Good, Bad and Bogus - Martin Gardner
Bad Science - Ben Goldacre
Metamagical Themas Chapter 5 - Douglas Hofstadter

Assignment 1
Course- An Invitation To Philosophy of Science
Assigned on- August 26, 2009
Submitted by- Amit Sharma

 
 1. What do you understand by ‘science’ ? How is it different from other disciplines of inquiry?
 To answer this question let us first of all try to understand what science really is.
 The term Science is derived from Latin words 'scire' and 'scientia' , which mean 'to know' and 'knowledge' respectively.
 According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."
 According to Oxford Dictionary Thesaurus- “Science is the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment”. Or “Science is an organized body of knowledge on any subject”.
 According to Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, “Science is knowledge about the world especially based on examination and testing and on facts that can be proved”.
 According to Albert Einstein, “Science is an attempt to make the chaotic diversity of our sense experience correspond to logically uniform system of thought”.
 Anonymous- “Science is the concerted human effort to understand better, the history of the natural world and how the natural world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding”.
 Through the above definitions one common character of science is highlighted, that Science is a system of acquiring objective knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using that system. The purpose of science is to produce useful models of reality.
 The nature of science is such that it is a never ending, continuous, collaborative, social effort to accumulate and replenish a body of knowledge, which is evidenced through a systematic process of empirical observations and experimentation. This nature can be compared to the process of designing and building up of a structure with building blocks. During the process, those blocks which once were found to be appropriate according to the older design, but now have become inappropriate and incompatible to the new design, need to be continuously reformed, modified or replaced.
  Science is different from other disciplines of inquiry due to this process nature of science. Unlike other disciplines the scientific inferences are built upon evidences which are continuously kept under scrutiny, and just one instance of an evidence which contradicts older evidences may lead to reformulation or replacement of older theory. Moreover, the whole process of scientific enterprise is continuously replenished by new facts and discoveries which need to be in affirmation and accordance with the older facts and discoveries. This keeps science as a “never ending process of modification and reformulation of knowledge”. This characteristic of science differentiates it from other disciplines which have a rigid and authoritative body of established knowledge, irrationally followed by others without comprehending any further.

2.What do you understand by the scientific method?
The scientific method was first specified by John Stuart Mill. According to Wikipedia Encyclopedia- “Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical, and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning”.
 “The Scientific Method is a logical and rational order of steps by which scientists come to conclusions about the world around them. The Scientific Method helps to organize thoughts and procedures so that scientists can be confident in the answers they find”.
The main distinguishable feature of scientific method is that the process of inquiry needs to be necessarily objective ''to reduce biased interpretations of the results”. The other basic feature is “to document, archive and share all data and methodology so that they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them.”
The steps of Scientific Method are:
 Observation
 Hypothesis
 Prediction
 Experimentation
 Analysis
 Inferences
 Conclusion
 Publication
 Reference by other scientists.
  The above steps are related to the Hypothetico-deductive model. According to this model any problem that is faced or observed, and to which no explanations are found in the present domains of knowledge is taken up as a research problem. Now, based on the primary observation and existing knowledge, this problem is tried to be explained through some possible hypotheses. Following this “assuming that the hypothesis is true” some predictions are made, which are then tested through experimentation. The testing is generally done in order to look for some opposite consequences so as to disprove the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is found to be disproved in light of evidences, another hypotheses are reframed and again the process is repeated. In case the evidences do not disprove hypothesis, the conclusions drawn are published so that it can be scrutinized by other scientists by following the reported procedures.
  The most important feature of scientific method is that “it can never absolutely verify, or prove the truth of hypothesis”. According to Albert Einstein, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong”. Therefore the acceptance of any conjecture remains “statistical in nature”.
  In spite of all the claims for being objective, no scientific method can ever be claimed to be completely free of biases. The very fact that the hypothesis formulated and the tools used in experimentation lie under one or the other paradigm, renders the inferences subjective to a great extent.

3.What is meant by “pseudo - science”? Make a list of activities you consider as pseudo-scientific? Give your reasons for doing so.
  The term “Pseudoscience” is derived from a Latin word “Scientia”, meaning “Knowledge”, with a Greek prefix “Pseudo”, meaning “false” or “pretending”. So the literal meaning of the the term is pretending knowledge. This term was first reported to be used by French physiologist Francois Magendie, in 1843. As defined by Wikipedia Encyclopedia- “Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence, or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status”.
According to Northern Journal of Medicine, I 387, 1844, “that opposite kind of innovation which pronounces what has been recognized as a branch of science, to have been a pseudoscience, composed of merely of so-called facts, connected together by misapprehensions under the disguise of principles”.
As clear from above definition, pseudoscience refers to those disciplines which are “inaccurately or deceptively portrayed as science”. The main characteristic of such disciplines is “the use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims, over-reliance on confirmation rather than on refutation, lack of openness to testing by other experts, and a lack of progress in theory development”.
The activities which I find to lay under pseudoscience are- Astrology, Superstition, Creationism, Psychoanalysis, Alchemy, etc.
The criteria widely used to differentiate science from pseudoscience are:-
“Non-reproducibility” due to lack of specific measurements and lack of operational definitions.
“Intersubjective verifiability”
“Occam's Razor” ie faliure to make reasonable use of the principle of parsimony by seeking an explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible.
“Falsifiability” or “vagueness of claims to be refuted” (Karl Popper), due to over-reliance of confirmation rather than refutation, or due to assertions that do not allow logical possibility that they can be shown to be false.
“Little efforts to develop the theory” (Paul R. Thagard)
“No concerns for attempts to critically evaluate the theory in relation to others” (Paul R. Thagard)
“Selectiveness in considering evidence” (Paul R. Thagard)
“Focus on resemblances rather than cause-effect relations” (Paul R. Thagard).
“Lack of effective controls in experimental designs”.

4.Do you agree with Lord Rutherford’s statement: “Science is what scientists do”. Explain your reasoning.
To comment on the given statement, let us first try to understand what Lord Rutherford implies with these words. The statement seems to point out towards a common procedure which all scientists follow to satisfy human curiosity in revealing laws of nature. This common procedure which all scientists follow is termed as scientific method. The statement also tends to point out that scientific community is a particular specialized group which alone can do science ie. scientists are not common people and that doing a scientific activity is not a common man's job.
The statement also reflects the pride and arrogance of Lord Rutherford for scientists being superior than the scientific activity itself. It seems to point out that only that body of knowledge would be accepted to be a part of scientific knowledge, which is acceptable to the scientific community.
I really wished to not to agree with such an arrogant statement, but sadly it is true. Any theory or discovery, to become a body of science has to face a latent period of scientific scrutiny. This is done by other scientists by critically examining the procedures, methodology, reproducibility, and rival explanatory power.
If we look at the history of science we find that certain theories which were based on loosely done experiments and subjective inferences were accepted only because the scientific community accepted them with a consensus. For example, the theory of spontaneous regeneration was discarded and the theory of generation of life from pre-existing life forms was accepted after the selective reporting of successful experiments done by Louis Pasteur, which were later found out to be full of discrepancies, only because the scientists examining the experiments were predetermined to accept the Louis Pasteur's view point. Similarly the selective reporting of the observations done by Eddington on the bending of visible star light by Sun's gravitational field, to prove Einstein's General theory of Relativity, was accepted by the scientific community. It was not because of the carefulness of the experimentation, rather it was due to the common agreement among scientists about the correctness of Einstein's theory.
On the other hand there are some carefully done experiments whose findings were never accepted only due to lack of willingness of the scientific community to accept them. The careful experiments on chemical transfer of memory done by James V. Mc Connell on Planaria, were not accepted as a scientific body of knowledge only because of lack of consensus amongst scientists.
These examples indicate that for something to be accepted as science it needs to practiced by and be accepted by the scientific community.

5.Consider the following claims made about the effect of different planets on human beings. Do you agree with any of the claims made above? If yes, give reasons. If no, give reasons. Are there any falsifiable claims in this article? What are arguments that you would give to counter the claims made in this article?
 
  No, I do not agree with the claims made in the given article. In this article a description has been given about how planets and other cosmic bodies produce psychological effect on personalities of human beings. The article selectively uses the factual knowledge about the planets and other bodies of solar-system and tries to relate it with the astrological sun signs and tries to justify the characteristics of persons categorized in a particular sun-sign.
 The article beautifully relates the characteristic of planets with a personality trait in humans, but it fails to give any explanation for categorising someone in a particular sun-sign. The very foundation of all the arguments made, lies on the categorization of human beings in particular sun-signs, but what is the rationality behind this categorization is never testified. There are no falsifiable claims made in this article, because the selective use of characteristics of cosmic bodies and then assigning them as the causative agents of the personality traits of humans lying in that particular sun-sign leaves nothing to be falsified.
An argument which I find relevant in this context is that, there is no logical argument behind attributing any characteristic of bodies in solar-system to human personality, because the physical forces applied by them on Earth is uniform for all the living and non-living bodies on the Earth. How can one justify the different effect of Planets on different persons.
Another argument is that, most of the characteristics of planets which have been chosen to define the characteristics of persons lying in particular sun-sign are common amongst most of them, like the effects of clouds on Venus and Saturn have been explained to effect differently on the personalities of humans, the dense clouds on Venus make it the brightest of all the planets, as the clouds around its surface traps the solar energy; leading to Venus person look glamorous and attract the powerful. On the other hand the dense clouds on Saturn lead to a non transparent personality, because it is difficult to see at the surface of Saturn through cloud patterns. Similarly the gaseous nature of Sun, Jupiter and Saturn have also been interpreted differently.

6.Consider the following dialogue that Alice is having with Faustus about nature of
friction between surfaces. Faustus says that a rolling ball stops its motion due to
demons. Based on this dialogue can you choose which theory is better at explaining friction.
Give explanations for your choice? If you were in place of Alice, how would you have argued with Faustus?

After reading both the arguments, I find that the friction is better explained as a physical force existing in nature rather than being explained as a force applied by demons. The reason is the principle of Parsimony. To reason with the demons applying force one has to develop several ad-hoc theories, such as transparency of their bodies, changing of number of demons, rapid multiplication of demons to apply just the appropriate force, crushing of demons etc., which even violates the laws related to living and non-living bodies. On the other hand if we take the side of friction as a natural force, then it can be explained without violating any natural laws.
If I were in place of Alice, I would have argued that what Faustus was doing was actually personification of force. All the arguments he gave were being made by keeping in view the truthness of existence of demons. This thing is against the falsifiablity principle of science. The scientific concepts are developed by testing against the hypothesis and finding the evidences against it. On this criteria the concept of demons is unscientific, as it is untestable.





7.Some exercises in Logic.
Which of the following arguments are logically valid, explain your reasoning:
 
[a] All carnivores eat meat.
Some birds are not carnivores.
Hence, some birds dont eat meat.
---- The above argument is logically valid, because the conclusion made through deduction from the two premises is true, if the premises are true.

[b] If I support India, they will win the world cup.
I support India.
Hence, India will win the world cup.
---- The above argument is also logically valid, because the conclusion made from the two premises is true through deduction with the condition that the premises are true.

[c] I support India.
Michael Clarke plays for Australia
Hence, India will win the world cup.
----The above argument it logically invalid, because the two premises are unrelated to each other hence no valid conclusion can be drawn from them.
 
[d] Alice drinks milk.
All cats drink milk.
Hence, Alice is a cat.
---- The above argument is logically invalid, because again the subjects of two premises are unrelated and different. Therefore no valid conclusion can be drawn from the two given premises.

I would like to change the explanation for the invalidity of argument in question 7(d). The argument is invalid because of the uncertainty in inclusiveness of 'Alice' in the class 'cats'. If 'only' had been used, in the second premise instead of 'all', then the conclusion of "Alice is a cat" would have been logically valid.

 We all have some idea about science that has come to our mind from the whole course of learning from childhood to school upto the graduate level, and this idea keeps on changing with the topics that we usually read in this discipline. So actually its definition is becoming more and more complex as we learn more about the broader aspect of it. The word Science [1] comes from the latin word scientia, meaning "knowledge" is, in its broadest sense, any systamatic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique or practice.
           In a contemporary sense, science is a knowledge based on scientific method, and to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research and is usually called experimental science to differentiate it from applied science which is the application of scientific research to specific human needs—although the two are commonly interconnected. However, Science may be thought of as an attempt [2] to understand, explain and predict the world we live in and thus, an important feature of science is the construction of theory.
         
           Again science can be viewed as fallible [3] and untidy, a matter of craft rather than logic. The methods of scientific research include the generation of hypothesis about how various natural or social phenomena work. In this way it is quite different from other disciplines of inquiry where the methods are quite rigid and you are not allowed to make hypothesis as such.

REFRENCES
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#cite_note-0
[2]Okasha S., Philosophy of science, Oxford University Press.
[3]Collins S. & Pinch J., The Golem, Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Popularly Scientific method [1] refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge, this method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning and collection of data. After that, formulation and testing of hypothesis and then the formation of theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

However according to Karl Popper [2] the fundamental feature of a scientific theory is that it should be falsifiable and falsifiable theory is one that is based on some definite predictions that turns out to be wrong and the predictions are capable of being tested against experience.

No, i disagree with all the claims made in this article on the following grounds:
There seems to occur some problems with falsification in the field of astrology. First, the predictions that it makes are often ambiguous; so its very difficult to establish what would constitute a failed prediction.
    For example a horoscope prepared by a professional astrologer when given to a varied cadre of non-specific people appeals to them because the claims made are sufficiently vague and open to interpretation that they appear to harmonize to a diverse group.
      Further, even if astrology manages to adhere to its predictions unambiguously by carrying out a precise empirical test in an attempt to falsify it then such failed predictions are not acceptable to most astrologers and attempts are made to justify them by giving ad-hoc explanations. In astrology it is difficult to build clear, conclusive empirical tests  that would  permit  its falsification.
The astrological community on the other hand seems unlikely and unprepared to accept nothing which would try to attempt for falsification of their theory. Thus, astrology is operationally unfalsifiable and has  remained  stagnant  albeit the problems with its methodology (problem of precision of equinoxes, lack of concrete explanation for the mechanism of planetary influences).  
   
 On the above  grounds the given article seems inconsistent in terms of its predictions for the population on this planet Earth. 

Truth Tables for
        
AND
        
A B A Λ B
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F F
        
        
OR
        
A B A V B
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F
        
        
NOT
        
A A˜
T F
F T
        

The examples of these truth tables can be found in the context of Set operations.
Let there be two sets X,Y and U be the universal set, then their union, intersection and complement sets can be formed by using the above truth table.
If we assign,
Belongs to by T
Does not belongs to by F
Then the above truth table give the information about any element, whether it belongs to there union, intersection or complementation.
For example if {1,2,3} belongs to X , {3,4,5} belongs to Y and the universal set consists of {1,2,3,4,5} then for any element '1' we can say that it belongs to there union but not to there intersection. Also the complement of X does not contain '1'. Similarly for other elements.
 

Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status.
The term comes from the Greek prefix pseudo- (false or pretending) and "science" (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"). An early recorded use was in 1843 by French physiologist François Magendie who is considered a pioneer in experimental physiology.
The term is inherently pejorative ( terms which have a negative connotation), because it is used to assert that something is being inaccurately or deceptively portrayed as science. Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating a "pseudoscience" normally dispute this characterization.
There is disagreement among philosophers of science and among commentators in the scientific community about whether there is a reliable objective way to distinguish "pseudoscience" from non-mainstream "science".
As taught in certain introductory science classes, pseudoscience is any subject that appears superficially to be scientific, or whose proponents state that it is scientific, but which nevertheless contravenes the testability requirement or substantially deviates from other fundamental aspects of the scientific method.
Pseudoscience has been characterised by the use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims, over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation, lack of openness to testing by other experts, and a lack of progress in theory development.
Examples of Pseudosciences:
Numerology
Hora
Neuro-linguistic programming
EMDR
Rebirthing
Reparenting,
Scientology
Primal Therapy
Pseudomathematics
Popular sciences
Science fiction
Revelation
Theology, or spirituality
Creation science
Intelligent design
"Structure-altered" waters (commercial quackery)
Astrology
Astropsychology
Angelic Science
Chiromancy
Anthropogenic Global Warming
Anthropogenic Climate Change
Divination by pendulums
Parapsychology
Psychoenergetics
Psychic Surgery
Psychotronics
Telekinesis
Naturism
Iridology
Homeopathy
Therapeutic Touch
Alienology
UFOlogy
Parallel Science (Magic)
Pyramidal Science
Biblical Science
Egyptian Science
Acupuncture
Dowsing
Monsters - Bigfoot, Loch Ness monster etc.
EMF poisoning
Magnetic healing
Velikovsky (example of a wide variety of authors of books who attempt to explain prehistory or myths. The basic question concerns the Bible. eg stories of flood, manna from heaven, sun standing still, etc.
Biorhythm
Feng-shui
Reiki

The phenomenon of Evolution is expalined by a no. of theories like:
Panspermia, Cosmic ancestry, Horizontal gene transfer, RNA world, Viruses, Darvinism, Neo-Darvinism, Lamarkism, Homologous organs, Mutation theory, Variations, Mendel's laws, Natural selection, Sexual differentiation, Coniditional intelligence , Random mating, Baldwinism, Speciation, Fossilization, Germplasm theory, Anthropology, Shift theory, Genetic drift, Recapitulation theory, Theory of Abiogenesis.

Some theories that were originally considered pseudoscientific but which are now accepted as scientific effects or valid hypotheses are: Continental drift, Cosmology, Ball lightning, and Radiation hormesis, Osteopathy.

7 a) The given argument is valid.
       Validity of the argument is confirmed (using set theory) as follows:
       Let,
       Set A= {carnivorous animals}
       or A= {all meat eating animals}
and
       Set B= {all birds}
Hence,
       (B-A)= {birds which do not eat meat}
 The shaded portion confers the validity of the argument.

7 d) The given argument is invalid.
         Validity of the argument is confirmed as follows:
           Let,
       Set A= {Alice}
       Set B= {milk}
and
       Set C= {cats}
Hence,
       This representation does not infer that Alice is a cat

7 b) The given argument is valid.
       Validity of the argument is confirmed as follows:
       Let,
       Set A= {conditional support for India}
and Set B= {Probability of India winning the World cup}
Hence,
       (AᴒB)= {India will win the world cup}
 The shaded portion confers the validity of the argument.

7 c) The given argument is invalid.
         Validity of the argument is confirmed as follows:
           Let,
       Set A= {support for India}
       Set B= {Michael Clarke playing for Australia}
and
       Set C= {India winning the world cup}
Hence,
       This representation does not infer that India will win the world cup.

In propositional logic, a tautology (from the Greek word ταυτολογία) is a propositional formula that is true under any possible valuation (also called a truth assignment or an interpretation) of its propositional variables. For example, the propositional formula ("A or not-A") is a tautology, because the statement is true for any valuation of A. Examples can be more complex such as ("A and B; or not-A; or not-B").
Thus, “All men are rational” is held to assert with regard to anything whatsoever that either it is a man or it is not rational. But this universal “truth” follows not from any facts noted about real men but only from the actual use (or one such use) of “man” and “rational” and is thus purely a matter of definition. The statement cannot but be true because it asserts every possible state of affairs: it is true whichsoever of its constituents are true, and it is also true whichsoever are false.
The name tautology was introduced by one of the founding fathers of Linguistic Analysis, Ludwig Wittgenstein, who argued in the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (1921) that all necessary propositions are tautologies and that there is, therefore, a sense in which all necessary propositions say the same thing—viz, nothing at all.

Consider the formula
  
There are 8 possible valuations for the propositional variables A, B, C, represented by the first three columns of the following table. The remaining columns show the truth of subformulas of the formula above, culminating in a column showing the truth value of the original formula under each valuation.
A
B
C
 
 
 
 
 
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
F
T
F
F
F
T
T
F
T
F
T
T
T
T
T
F
F
F
T
T
T
T
F
T
T
F
T
T
T
T
F
T
F
F
T
F
T
T
F
F
T
F
T
T
T
T
F
F
F
F
T
T
T
T
Because each row of the final column shows T, the sentence in question is verified to be a tautology.
The following sentences are examples of tautologies:
 
 
 
where denotes AND, denotes "is equivalent to," denotes NOT, denotes OR, and denotes implies.

Mathematical Induction Example- Divisible by 3
Problem: For any natural number n , n3 + 2n is divisible by 3.
Proof:
Basis Step: If n = 0, then n3 + 2n = 03 + 2*0 = 0. So it is divisible by 3.
Induction: Assume that for an arbitrary natural number n,
n3 + 2n is divisible by 3. -------- Induction Hypothesis
To prove this for n+1, first we need to express ( n + 1 )3 + 2( n + 1 ) in terms of n3 + 2n and use the induction hypothesis.
( n + 1 )3 + 2( n + 1 ) = ( n3 + 3n2 + 3n + 1 ) + ( 2n + 2 )
= ( n3 + 2n ) + ( 3n2 + 3n + 3 )
= ( n3 + 2n ) + 3( n2 + n + 1 )
which is divisible by 3, because ( n3 + 2n ) is divisible by 3 by the induction hypothesis.

Mathematical Induction Example- Sum of Squares
Problem: For any natural number n , 12 + 22 + ... + n2 = n( n + 1 )( 2n + 1 )/6.
Proof:
Basis Step: If n = 0, then LHS = 02 = 0, and RHS = 0 * (0 + 1)(2*0 + 1)/6 = 0 .
Hence LHS = RHS.
Induction: Assume that for an arbitrary natural number n,
12 + 22 + ... + n2 = n( n + 1 )( 2n + 1 )/6. -------- Induction Hypothesis
To prove this for n+1, first we need to express LHS for n+1 in terms of LHS for n, and use the induction hypothesis.
Hence,
LHS for n + 1 = 12 + 22 + ... + n2 + (n + 1)2 = ( 12 + 22 + ... + n2 ) + (n + 1)2
Using the induction hypothesis, the last expression can be rewritten as
n( n + 1 )( 2n + 1 )/6 + (n + 1)2
Factoring (n + 1)/6 out, we get
( n + 1 )( n( 2n + 1 ) + 6 ( n + 1 ) )/6
= ( n + 1 )( 2n2 + 7n + 6 )/6
= ( n + 1 )( n + 2 )( 2n + 3 )/6 ,
which is equal to the RHS for n+1

Thus LHS = RHS for n+1

Two seminal articles published in 2004 and 2005 in the
 prestigious scientific journal Science heralded a new era
 in stem cell research. Findings from the study published
 in November 2005 pointed to cures for millions of people
 with diseases ranging from diabetes to paralysis resulting from spinal cord injuries. This study generated significant optimism among patients and was reported widely in both the scientific
 and public media.
   
Then on Jan. 10, 2006, Seoul National University announced
 that South Korean scientific icon veterinarian Dr. Hwang Woo Suk
 was responsible for fabrication and manipulation of the data pre-

sented in the two articles. Science immediately retracted both articles, but not until more than 200 other published scientific articles
 already had cited Dr. Hwang’s findings.


Just three days after the stunning announcement from South
 Korea, another prestigious journal, The Lancet, learned that data it
 published in an October 2005 article may have been “manipulated.”

The next day, representatives from the Norwegian Radium Hospital
 Oslo announced that not only had Dr. Jon Sudbø—a researcher on
 their staff and the lead author of the Lancet article—manipulated
 the data, but his study was a “complete fabrication.”

The study purportedly looked at the incidence of oral cancer and
 cardiovascular disease among people using nonsteroidal anti-
inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Results of the study suggested that

the use of NSAIDs reduced the incidence of oral cancer, but increased
 the risk of death from cardiovascular disease.1 Of the 908 individuals
 said to be part of the study, the author apparently fabricated data for
 454 people with oral cancer. The Lancet retracted the article.

Two seminal articles published in 2004 and 2005 in the prestigious scientific journal Science heralded a new era in stem cell research. Findings from the study published in November 2005 pointed to cures for millions of people with diseases ranging from diabetes to paralysis resulting from spinal cord injuries. This study generated significant optimism among patients and was reported widely in both the scientific and public media.
   
Then on Jan. 10, 2006, Seoul National University announced that South Korean scientific icon veterinarian Dr.Hwang Woo Suk was responsible for fabrication and manipulation of the data presented in the two articles. Science immediately retracted both articles, but not until more than 200 other published scientific articles already had cited Dr.Hwang’s findings.


Just three days after the stunning announcement from South Korea, another prestigious journal, The Lancet, learned that data it published in an October 2005 article may have been “manipulated.”

The next day, representatives from the Norwegian Radium Hospital
Oslo announced that not only had Dr. Jon Sudbø—a researcher on their staff and the lead author of the Lancet article—manipulated
the data, but his study was a “complete fabrication.”

The study purportedly looked at the incidence of oral cancer and
cardiovascular disease among people using nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Results of the study suggested that the use of NSAIDs reduced the incidence of oral cancer, but increased the risk of death from cardiovascular disease.Of the 908 individuals said to be part of the study, the author apparently fabricated data for 454 people with oral cancer. The Lancet retracted the article.

Examples of Ad-hoc explanations to patch up existing theories: Leverrier on Neptune

In 1846 the French astronomer Leverrier, on the basis of various irregularities in
 Uranus’ motion and Newtonian mechanics (call this h), predicted the existence,
 and orbit, of a large, extra-Uranian planet. This planet was was subsequently found
 (call this e) and named ‘Neptune’.


Plank's Black body formula
Plank's hypothesis of the Quantum, aimed at removing the inconsistency between classical physics and certain empirical data concerning the spectrum of radiation in a hollow cavity. Plank assumed that the oscillatiors responsible for the emmision and absorption of such a radiation had their energies restricted to an integral number of a basic amount of energy. This was suffecient to derive an empirically correct formula- Plank's Black body formula.

Assignment – 1
Philosophy of Science
Date: 9 Nov 2009
Submitted by: Shikha Takker


1. What do you understand by ‘science’ ? How is it different from other disciplines of inquiry?
Definition The word science is derived from the Latin word "scientia," meaning knowledge.
In its broadest sense, any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome is science. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique or practice. Dictionary of Farlex describes science as, any systematic field of study or body of knowledge that aims, through experiment, observation, and deduction, to produce reliable explanations of phenomena, with reference to the material and physical world.
In its more restricted contemporary sense, science is a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, and to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research. According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method and concerned with the physical world.
Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. Thus the term ‘science’ is used to refer to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using that system over the years using this method of enquiry and the same presumptions about the scientific method.
It is believed that science is a continuing effort to discover and increase human knowledge and understanding through disciplined research. Using controlled methods, scientists collect observable evidence of natural or social phenomena, record measurable data relating to the observations, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work. The methods of scientific research include the generation of hypotheses about how phenomena work, and experimentation that tests these hypotheses under controlled conditions. Scientists are also expected to publish their information so other scientists can do similar experiments to double-check their conclusions. The results of this process enable better understanding of past events, and better ability to predict future events of the same kind as those that have been tested.
Thus, scientific knowledge is considered to be proven knowledge. Science is based on what we see, touch, feel and hear. Scientific theories are rigorous as they have derived from the carefully tested facts based on experimentation and observation. Personal opinions, speculations, imaginings have no place in the gamut of science. Science is objective and scientific knowledge is value free as it is derived from objective ways to reach at conclusions.
The critiques of science emerge from its own shell:
a) science can be like any other faith or subject based on fanaticism defining and shaping meanings in a particular way, (Jacques Barzun, Historian)
b) the manipulation of variables in science might also mean manipulating what exists. The 17th century scientific revolution shifted science from a focus on understanding nature, or wisdom, to a focus on manipulating nature, i.e. power, and that science's emphasis on manipulating nature leads it inevitably to manipulate people, as well. (Carolyn Merchant, Theodor Adorno and E. F. Schumacher; thinkers)
c) Science's focus on quantitative measures has led to critiques that it is unable to recognize important qualitative aspects of the world.
d) the idea that science can or should operate according to universal and fixed rules is unrealistic, pernicious and detrimental to science itself (Paul K Feyerabend, Philosopher of science)
e) how can the tools of science be used to settle disputes pertaining to its own validity, which is the scientists way of doing it. (Stanley Aronowitz, Professor)
f) Though science attempts to understand all of nature, the experimental method used would pose artificial, conditional questions that evoke only partial answers. (Carl Jung, Psychologist)
g) The instruments used in scientific investigation produce meaningful answers relevant only to the instrument, and that there is no objective vantage point from which science could verify its findings since all findings are relative to begin with (Robert Anton Wilson, Philosopher and polymath)
Science is unique science is an attempt to understand, explain and predict about the world we live in. the distinguishing feature of science is in the method of its study and the assumptions that it makes about the nature of enquiry, people undertaking it and ways of enquiry. It differs in the way theories get constructed and used i.e. seeing a particular observation in light of a theory or formulating a theory based on observations. What distinguishes science from other disciplines is in nature of science, methods used and the conclusions drawn. However, despite that theories formed in controlled conditions are open to refutations, can be revisited. This makes it unique and distinct.

2. What do you understand by the Scientific method?
Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating natural phenomena by correcting and integrating previous knowledge or acquiring new knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and quantifiable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
As stated in answer 1, although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge.
a) The Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experiments to test these hypotheses.
b) The steps to prove hypothesis are supposed to be replicable for them to be open to verification under defined conditions
c) They help us make predictions
d) Theories bind difference hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
e) The pillars of scientific method: observation and experimentation are supposed to be objective to reduce biased interpretations of the results.
f) Scientists do not just observe but systematically record, archive and share all data, methodology and findings so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.
According to Anthony Carpi & Anne E. Egger, a common misconception in science is that science provides facts or "truth" about a subject. Science is not collection of facts; rather, it is a process of investigation into the natural world and the knowledge generated through that process. This process of investigation is often referred to as the scientific method. It is typically defined in as a linear set of steps through which a scientist moves from observation through experimentation and to a conclusion as shown below:
Observation -----) Question ------------) Hypothesis -----------) Experiment -----------) Conclusion
The definition of the scientific method has changed over time. In the 20th century, a hypothetico-deductive model for scientific method was formulated which was based on using experience to identify a new problem. Use the previous understanding about the phenomena to form a conjecture. Deduce a prediction from that explanation and test this prediction.
However, this classic portrayal has a number of problems. Some of them can be listed as
a) Science is not a linear process - it doesn’t have to start with an observation or a question, and it commonly does not even involve experiments. Instead, the scientific method is a much more dynamic and robust process.
b) The terms like objectivity, direct observation, and experimentation do not mean the same in the domain of science. Also, neither science nor scientists are value neutral.
c) Scientists do not always begin in a linear fashion. One might get inspired by the natural phenomena or other researchers’ work, or would refute someone’s work. This methodical approach is not a sole enterprise of ‘scientific method’
d) The scientific method is not a way to discover the truth but it is an interpretation to explain a phenomena in the given constraints of material/ apparatus used, the physical conditions or the environment and controlled conditions.
e) This method can never absolutely verify. It can only falsify (This is what Einstein meant when he said "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.)
3. What is meant by “pseudo - science”? Make a list of activities you consider as pseudo-scientific? Give your reasons for doing so.
Definition: The Greek word ‘pseudo’ means false or pretending and science (Latin word ‘scientia) means knowledge. According to wikipedia encyclopedia, Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status. The first recorded use was by French physiologist François Magendie, in 1843; considered a pioneer in experimental physiology. pseudoscience is any subject that appears superficially to be scientific, or whose proponents state that it is scientific, but which nevertheless contravenes the testability requirement or substantially deviates from other fundamental aspects of the scientific method.
The term is often used pejoratively as a synonymous to science. The status of science and pseudo science is differential and so this term carries a negative connotation. However, consensually the philosophers of science and the scientific community it is completely differentiated from mainstream science as it is not objective, reliable, valid, observable and experimental. It has been characterized by the use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims, over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation, lack of openness to testing by other experts, and a lack of progress in theory development.
The concept of pseudoscience rests on an understanding that scientific methodology has been misrepresented or misapplied with respect to a given theory, but many philosophers of science maintain that different kinds of methods are held as appropriate across different fields and different eras of human history. Paul Feyerabend, for example, disputes whether any meaningful boundaries can be drawn between pseudoscience, "real" science, and what he calls "protoscience", especially where there is a significant cultural or historical distance.
The popular ‘demarcation problem’ in science in philosophy of science is used to about how and where to draw lines around science and distinguish it from non science, pseudo science and religion.
Interpretations Larry Laudan suggested that pseudoscience has no scientific meaning and is mostly used to describe our emotions: "If we would stand up and be counted on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like 'pseudo-science' and 'unscientific' from our vocabulary; they are just hollow phrases which do only emotive work for us". Likewise, Richard McNally states that "The term 'pseudoscience' has become little more than an inflammatory buzzword for quickly dismissing one’s opponents in media sound-bites" and that "When therapeutic entrepreneurs make claims on behalf of their interventions, we should not waste our time trying to determine whether their interventions qualify as pseudoscientific.
Karl Popper, an infuential 20th century philosopher of science, thought that the fundamental difference between science and non science is the criteria of falsifiability. A falsifiable (or scientific) theory would be one which is not compatible with every course of experience. According to him examples of pseudo science are Freud’s psychoanalytic theory and Marx theory of capitalism.
Examples of pseudo science: astrology, quackery the occult, and superstition


Astrology According to Leonid Kurochkin's classification, astrology is a pseudo-science, because it randomly combines scientific astronomy facts with absurd myths. Vitaliy Ginzburg claims that in the past astrology has been a science without any pseudo- prefixes. But unfortunately it was based on an incorrect hypothesis, stating relations of a man's personal luck to celestial bodies' turnover. After absence of such relations became clear, false idea exploitation has turned astrology to pseudo-science.
Other examples: Torsion Fields, Ether Wind, Quantum Medicine, Underground Gods of Doctor Muldashev, New Chronology, Astro psychology, Angelic Science, Chiromancy, Anthropogenic Global Warming, Anthropogenic Climate Change, Divination by pendulums
Parapsychology, Psychoenergetics, Psychic Surgery, Psychotronic, Telekinesi, Naturism (the belief that the mythical four elements cure diseases), Iridology, Homeopathy, Therapeutic Touch, Alienology, UFOlogy, Parallel Science (Magic), Pyramidal Science
Biblical Science, Egyptian Science, Reiki
5. Consider the following claims made about the effect of different planets on human beings.
Astrology: The Psychological Dimension of Astronomy (This article dwells on the connection between various astronomical discoveries related with planets and other cosmic bodies, with their Psychological impact on human beings, as described in Astrology. It is an effort to deepen the logical and scientific foundation of Astrological knowledge.) There have been immense debates about the inter relationship of Astrology and Astronomy for a long time.There are astronomers who brush aside Astrology as a superstition and can notunderstand how the far off objects in the sky can impact the human being. On the other side there are astrologers whose knowledge have been reduced to the horoscope placements of planets and these vast cosmic objects have just got reduced to figures on a paper. They seem to have lost their understanding that these are real objects in the skies which impact us because of their very nature. As a consequence their astrological knowledge is still backdated and remains restricted to the classical texts and they are not able to benefit from the recent astronomical discoveries. The connection between astronomy and astrology is very crucial to understand for every astrologer, as this provides with highly scientific basis for Astrology. Every new revelation of astronomical facts by way of scientific methods can add to the reservoir of astrological knowledge, if one is aware of this connection. This article will explore the various astronomical facts related with various cosmic entities such as planets, Nakshatras and Zodiac signs and their various dimensions as experienced by human beings on the planet earth. The purpose of this article is to make you familiar with the fact that the astro- nomical qualities of any cosmic body have a direct bearing on the thought patterns experienced by the humans on earth. The magnetic field of such entities also inter- acts with the magnetic field of earth and hence impacts the events taking place on the planet earth.

Now let us now consider the character of some of the planets. These examples are just to demonstrate the connection between astronomy and astrology and hence are not supposed to be exhaustive details.

Sun
- Sun personality is associated with ideas and intelligence, which leads to immense energy for creation. Why? Because constant nuclear fusion of Hydrogen into Helium is going on at the core of the Sun, which releases immense energy. Life on earth depends on this energy. That is why Sun depicts the personality and the energy, with which we live our lives. Why Sun oriented person is a poor listener? Because the sound travels poorly through sun, as the mass density is quite low. Why Sun based person is so much stressed? Because there is a constant burst of gaseous pressure created by the explosions.
 
Moon
- Moon based people always appear to be controlled by the past memories, both good and bad. He never forgives for your bad deeds as well as never forgets the good you do to him. Why? Because Moon is full of craters, which are created by the striking asteroids and they get filled very slowly because of the inert atmosphere and absence of water. Why a Moon person always likes to depend on someone or follow someone? Because Moon has no light of its own and it has to depend on Sun for that.
 
Mercury
- Why Mercury based person never takes a firm stand and he can be swayed so easily? Because all its magnetic field has been burnt because of its proximity with Sun. Why he like to follow and appears to have no followers? Because it has no satellite Moons. Why he never appears to be in tension? Because there is no atmospheric pressure on Mercury.
 
Mars
- Mars have always been associated with the courage and bravery. Why? Because the surface of Mars contains 13% Iron. Hence clearly the impact of Mars is to ignite the Iron like qualities in us. Why he forgets quickly, both the good and bad done to him? Because the craters gets filled quickly because of its deserts like surface. Why he give vent to theanger boiling inside him so frequently? Because there are mega volcanoes on Mars, which keep erupting regularly.
 
Venus
- Why Venus person look glamorous and attract the powerful? Because Venus is the brightest of all the planets, as the clouds around its surface traps the solar energy. Why Venus person is always in tension and hence keep scheming? Because Venus has a very dense atmosphere, which is full of poisonous gases. Hence she may appear very bright from outside, but the inner reality is starkingly different. (Isnt this the story of those involved with the glamorous professions, which are controlled by Venus?)
 
Jupiter
- Why Jupiter based person appears to be expanding his horizons without much struggle? Because raging storms are always on, which move in beautiful colourful patterns effortlessly. Why he often attracts the people around him? Because it has huge number of satellites (27 have been discovered till now) moving around it, as well as a huge magnetic field which is supposed to be double than that of Sun.
 
Saturn
- Why Saturn based person appears dull and restricted? Because it has a dull atmosphere of frozen gases and restrictive rings surrounding it. Why he is not transparent? Because planet Saturn has diffcult to see through cloud patterns. Why Saturn people are very good to give concrete shape to ideas? Because Saturn consists of gases (Ideas) , which have gotten solidified (concretization) because of cold (hard working )atmosphere.
 
Uranus
- Why Uranus oriented people display eccentric and radical behavior, which is not in tune with general society? Because magnetic field of Uranus is slanted at an angle of 60 degrees from its axis, while for all other planets it is parallel.
 
Neptune
- Why Neptune based people are so dreamy and have feel oneness with the whole humanity? Why they have a special interest in anything related with ocean? Because Neptune have got the deepest and largest oceans known on any planet.
 
Pluto
-Why Pluto oriented people are so mysterious and secretive? Because Pluto is very small in mass (the manifest), but it has a huge magnetic field (unmanifest) Similarly, if you study the astronomical characteristics of zodiac signs and Naksha- tras, you will discover stark similarity between their astronomical characteristics and their astrological descriptions. For Example, Mula Nakshatra includes the black hole, which is the center of our galaxy. From this black hole even light can not escape and it is understood that whatever goes into it, gets transformed and reaches the root of life. Similar is the character of the Mula person. He always looks at the roots of life and have a tendency to suck and destroy the material world in his search for the eternal. Let us look at the astronomical character of the zodiac sign of Leo, which mostly consists of Nebulas, which are the stars in formation. Similarly, Leo person possess immense energy and intelligence towards any new creation. Hence understanding the co-relation between Astronomy and Astrology deepens our astrological knowledge by studying new discoveries. At the same time it also provides the much needed scientific basis to the subject of Astrology. It will also serve a great purpose as the human race is able to feel its unity with universe and start to move in harmony with the cosmic plans.
 
Note: The text is copied verbatim from an astrological website [here ] and has no references. Pictures of the planets were removed.
Do you agree with any of the claims made above?
If yes, give reasons.
If no, give reasons.
Are there any falsifiable claims in this article?
What are arguments that you would give to counter the claims made in this article?
The claims made are an example of the tension between science and non science (pseudo science), This challenging effort to deepen the scientific foundation of Astrological knowledge has been critically evaluated by Arthur Young in his essay “On the Value of Astrology for a Science of Life”. He describes the distinction between astrology and science by stating that “Since there is no way known to science by which the planets could influence human events, it is natural that scientists have rejected astrology. On the other hand, people who have studied the subject find enough evidence for its validity so that, despite a lack of quantitative precision comparable to some science, there is sufficient evidence for general agreement among those who practice the subject that they can employ the same rules and get the same results.”
The arguments to negate these claims
a) belief that how do planets influence the nature/ personality of a human being just by the virtue of belonging to a particular Zodiac sign
b) it overshadows the basic individual differences arising dues to variance in cognitive ability, social, political and economic conditions, contextual variations,
c) The repeated failure to demonstrate statistically significant relationships between astrological predictions and operationally-defined outcomes. Effect size tests of astrology-based hypotheses conclude that the mean accuracy of astrological predictions is no greater than what is expected by chance. It has been suggested that other statistical research is often wrongly seen as evidence for astrology due to uncontrolled artifacts.
d) vague predictions, lack of acceptance for invalid claims, overgeneralization of results, lack of precision in stating the assumptions, use of instruments, predictions and their source are some of the significant reasons for not believing in astrological assertions as reliable.

7. a) valid , the conclusion logically flows from the two premises. Since all carnivores eat meat and some birds are not in the category of carnivores, they are outside the set of meat eaters.
b) invalid, the premises that will make the conclusion valid:
If I support India, they will always win the world cup
I support India
Hence, India will win the world cup
c) invalid, there is no connection between the two premises i.e. nothing in common

d) invalid, there could be other living beings apart from cats who drink milk. Thus, the milk taking category is not exhaustive with only cats.

8. Inductive arguments
a) The principle of induction works for situation 1
The principle of induction works for situation 2
The principle of induction works always
b) My cat got up at 6:00 am yesterday
She got up at 6:00 am today
She gets up at 6:00 am everyday
Deductive Arguments
a) All animals live in jungle
Cheetah is an animal
Cheetah lives in jungle
b) All animals have a sixth sense
Men are animals
Men have a sixth sense
9. Truth tables
a) AND
Consider A, B as two statements and T stands for True, F for False
A B A^B
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F F

b) OR
A B AvB
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F
c) NOT
A A’ (not A)
T F
 F T
            
13. Examples of fields that were originally considered pseudoscientific but which are now accepted scientific effects or valid hypotheses, for example, continental drift, cosmology, ball lightning, and radiation hormesis. As another example, osteopathy has, according to Kimball Atwood, "for the most part, repudiated its pseudoscientific beginnings and joined the world of rational healthcare." Others, such as phrenology or alchemy were originally considered highly scientific, but now are taken as pseudoscience. Further, there are protosciences such as cultural, traditional, or ancient practices such as acupuncture practice and traditional Chinese medicine which do not conform to modern scientific principles, but which are not pseudoscience because their proponents do not claim the practices to be scientific according to today's standards of scientific method.

14. Phenomena and the theories explaining it
a) Geometry – Euclidian and Riemannian
b) Theory of light – Newton’s Corpuscular theory, Huygens wave theory, Maxwell Electromagnetic theory, Plank’s Quantum theory
c) Structure of Atom – Dalton’s model, Thomson’s Plum Pudding model, Rutherford’s planetary model, Bohr’s Quantum theory
d) Enzyme – Lock and key model (Fischer), Induced Fit theory, Active site and substrate interaction
e) Cell Membrane Theory – Barrier theories (Quincke), Single layer model (Fricke), David Nicolson model, Davison and Danieelli model
f) Periodic Table – Lavousier, Dobereiner, Lothar Meyer, Newlands, Meendeleev and Meyer, Modern Periodic Table
g) Theories on the Structure of DNA – Linus Poling, Watson and Crick model

A tautology is a logical statement in which the conclusion is equivalent to the premise. More colloquially, it is formula in propositional calculus which is always true (Simpson 1992, p. 2015; D'Angelo and West 2000, p. 33; Bronshtein and Semendyayev 2004, p. 288). It is unfalsifiable making it true in all contexts. In propositional logic, a tautology (from the Greek word ταυτολογία) has a specific connotation which is different from a rhetoric tautology. It refers to a propositional formula that is true under any possible valuation. Therefore it is also called a truth assignment or an interpretation of its propositional variables.
For example, the propositional formula (A) V (-A) ["A or not-A"] is a tautology, because the statement is true for any valuation of A that is if A is true –A will necessarily be false and vice versa. The other examples can be found as in set theory (well known as De Morgan’s Law) as (A ^ B) V (-A) V (-B) ["A and B; or not-A; or not- B is true]. In first-order logic, a distinction is maintained between tautologies and logically valid formulas, in which tautologies are a proper subset of the logically valid formulas. The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein first applied the term to propositional logic in 1921.
A tautology's negation is a contradiction, a propositional formula that is false regardless of the truth values of its propositional variables. Such propositions are called unsatisfiable. Conversely, a contradiction's negation is a tautology. A formula that is neither a tautology nor a contradiction is said to be logically contingent. Such a formula can be made either true or false based on the values assigned to its propositional variables.
Truth table for tautology has 8 possible valuations but the table can not fit here. It can be referred to on the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_%28logic%29

Assignment : Philosophy of Science
Submitted by: Ranjana Yadav

Q.No- 1: “Science in the universal sense is the study of nature and the behaviour of the physical universe in order to develop descriptive and explanatory frameworks for understanding physical phenomena”. It is very difficult to define science because it is an abstract term.
Definition of Science: "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world. In the late 17th and 18th centuries there was a strong move to separate the science out and distinguish sharply from religion and philosophy on the one hand and from the various forms of pseudo science on the other.

Sir Albert Einstine has described “Science as what scientist do is science” but in the views of other philosophers it is different.

Views of philosophers like,
Francis Bacon: He said that Science proceeds through; Empirical observation → experiment → induction of general laws → prediction. According to Bacon there is a complete segregation (separation) of science with theology (religion). They are
concerned with different spheres – science with the natural phenomena and theology with the supernatural.

Karl Popper: The complex and abstract theories developed within science, especially in physics, were clearly not directly inferred from sensory observations.
In the 20th century, scientists are no longer seen as passive observers discovering the laws of nature that are already there, instead they are seen to have an active an creative role in the construction of scientific theorie
According to popper, there cannot be any direct connection between the observations we make about the world and the generalizations (laws and theories) of science.

Thomas Samuel Kuhn: According to Kuhn what is defined as science is at any one time is what the scientific community as a whole chooses to accept as science.

References:
Google/ wikipedia
www.sciencemadesimple.com/science-definition.html
Philosophy of Science by shadia

Philosophy of Science
Assignment- 2
Date- 11-12-09

Q. Take some scientific discipline or specialty you are familiar with.
 (a) What is its paradigm in the sense of concrete illustrations and problems?
 (b) What are some of its rules?
 (c) What are some of the interesting problems remaining?
 (d) What would count as an anomaly, as a legitimate solution?
Ans.- The scientific discipline selected for answering this question is life science.
 One of the most important paradigms in life sciences is the concept of “cell”. Cells were first discovered by Robert Hook, when he saw bee-hive like compartmented structures in the slice of cork through his microscope. After this discovery, such cells were observed in all forms of plants and animals known at that period. Through induction it was concluded that cells are present in all living organisms. Later on, some microscopic organisms such as amoeba, paramecium, euglena etc. were also discovered through high power microscopes and better staining methods. These microscopic organisms had no compartmentalization of their bodies but had similar forms of organelles as those found inside the cells of multicellular organisms. So, they were named as 'unicellular' organisms, meaning the living organisms with single celled body.
Thus, cell came to defined as- “The cell is the basic structural and functional unit of all known living organisms”. Cells were also characterized as “smallest unit of life that is classified as a living thing”, and as “building blocks of life”.
 A cell theory was developed by M.J. Schleiden and T. Schwann which states that:-
-“All cells are composed of one or more cells”,
-“All cells come from preexisting cells”,
-“Vital functions of an organism occur within cells”, and
-“All cells contain the hereditary information necessary for regulation of all functions and for transmitting information to the next generation of cells”.
Problem-1
After the discovery of some still simpler forms of organisms which lacked well defined membranes around their organelles like Bacteria, PPLO (Pleuro Pneumonia Like Organisms), a question arises whether these organisms should be called Unicellular or Acellular, as, such organisms lacked distinct features which were common to the cells of multicellular organisms.
Solution- This problem is resolved by again focusing on the definition. As the definition states that the structural and the functional unit of the organism would be termed as cell, so there remains no question about the inner organelles of the organism. However different the inner structure of the cell be with typical cell, till the cell defines the unit of the organism it shall be called as a cell.

Problem-2
Another objection made is regarding the relationship of cell with the organism. In multicellular organisms, the cells of different organs differ so much with each other in terms of their functions and structures, that if observed isolated, they have just a few comparative features, for example the Red blood cells in a human body are extremely different from the cells of the inner lining of stomach and epidermal cells. Moreover, individual cells can survive outside the body of organism in a proper environment and divide to form other cells of similar kind.
To add to the above argument, there are some forms of living organisms like sponges, where the cells act like colonies of differentiated cells. The cells maintain their identities to such an extent that if the organism is crushed to microscopic pieces, then the cells can re-aggregate to form the complete organism. So, comparing these two conditions, a question arises whether living organisms can be viewed as colonies of cells rather than viewing them as units of the organism.
Solution- The answer to above argument lies in the origin of the cell. In multicellular organisms although the cells at different locations differ so much with each other, the fact still remains unchanged that they all originate from a single cell. Its only after specific process of differentiation that they differ so much with each other, but the genetic material remains the same in all the cells. So, they cannot be called as colonies of different forms of cells, rather, they still remain the basic units of the organism. In case of organisms like sponges where the genetic material of different cells differ, there the concept of a colony can be maintained.
Remaining Problem-
One of the interesting problem that remains unsolved from a long time is the issue of defining the cellular nature and even categorizing Viruses, Viroids and Prions as 'living', or as 'organic structures that interact with living organisms'. Actually the fact that these infective agents need a host body for replicating themselves, which is the only sign of their being living, creates a difficulty in categorizing them in living or non-living. Viruses have a body made of a genetic material surrounded by protein wall. Viroids are molecules of RNA that are not classified as viruses because they lack a protein coat, while Prions are infectious protein molecules that do not contain DNA or RNA. Other than replication of the protein and genetic material inside the host cell by the genetic material, they show no sign of life- like no exchange of gases, no cell organelles, no metabolic cycles (Kreb's cycle, Glycolysis etc.), no other mode of reproduction which are common to other life forms (sexual or asexual reproduction).
So, due to these characteristics the problem remains unsolved whether to call virus, viroids, and prions living or non-living, and whether their bodies could be called as cell (cells are basic structural and functional units of “living organisms”).
Legitimate solution- The only legitimate solution to the problem is to find out the origin of these organisms. The bacteria rickettsia and chlamydia are living cells that, like viruses, can reproduce only inside host cells. They lend support to the hypothesis that Viruses may have once been small cells that prasitized larger cells. Over time, genes not required by their parasitism were lost. As their dependence on parasitism is likely to have caused the loss of genes that enabled them to survive outside a cell. This is called the Degenerative hypothesis. If any evidences supporting this hypothesis could be found then it can established that viruses are products of natural selection and are living cells.
But the above hypothesis has another problem associated with it, that the origin of viruses is unclear because they do not form fossils, and the molecular techniques involved rely on the availability of ancient viral DNA or RNA, but, unfortunately, most of the viruses that have been preserved and stored in laboratories are less than 90 years old.
The other solution is to add the criteria of presence of organic material inside a well defined enclosure, which has a potential of replicating itself, to the defining criteria of a cell. This would create a need of another Kingdom of living organisms along with the five other kingdoms of Monera, Protista, Fungi, Plants, and, Animals.

Philosophy of science
Date- 15-12-09

Q.- All the text books of science that we have in schools and colleges are instruments for building consensus. Argue giving examples.
Ans.- The above statement has been made in the context of role of text books in training the young minds in a particular paradigm and ignoring the other paradigms which are less popular among the scientific community. To understand the statement more deeply let us understand the nature of science as being taught in schools and colleges.
 It appears that science; which is both- a body of knowledge and a process of obtaining it, has been differently adopted in contexts of Education and Research. In scientific world, Science is practiced as both product and process, while in schools and colleges science is taught simply as a “body of knowledge” ie “product” in the form of scientific facts, theories and laws which have been well established by scientists. For this purpose only that product is selected in the text-books which has been widely accepted by scientific community. Along with this, some practical skills of doing experiments in laboratories are also taught.
 Actually the schools and colleges that run today are adaptations of schools run by church, where children were taught about the preachings of Bible and other religious books. These religious texts were thought to carry an infallible body of knowledge, with little scope of being questioned. The purpose of these schools was to make children learn that unquestionable body of knowledge by heart, so the methods adopted were simply to make children concentrate on the study matter and learn it by heart, without questioning it. Initially only a selected elite group of children were allowed to get such education, but with the rise of industrial revolution, the need of a large population of educated people arose. So, more and more schools were opened to educate children in those areas which were relevant to industrial needs. Therefore, on one hand the subjects like science, technology got incorporated into the educational system and on other hand education got out of the hands of religious groups, whose curriculum was not in lieu with the growing industrial demands of speed and quality.
  It seems that both these reasons- religious background of educational system and the need of handy knowledge for contemporary industrial needs led to the education of product form of knowledge through education system. For teaching this ready knowledge, texts-books play a role similar to unquestionable religious texts, whose purpose is to make children accept the existing body of knowledge unquestionably.
 Now, the problem arises due to difference of approaches in the educational and scientific world. Children while learning science, form a rigid image of the product nature of science and feel that the scientific facts are ultimate, thus, getting entrapped into the paradigms learned. These children, when reach the stage of becoming scientists, are unable to appreciate the continuous and replenishable nature of science, thus degrading the scientific endeavor. This situation in a way helps to form a consensus about specific paradigms which are widely accepted by scientific community, especially by text book writers. This can be understood by following example-
Children from very lower classes are taught through their text books, that all living organisms are made up of cells, which are the basic structural and functional units of all living organisms. This paradigm was established through the Cell theory given by M.J. Schleiden and T. Schwann. Now, when children come to know about Acellular organisms, the text-books again continues with the same paradigm to use the term Uni-cellular for them. This, wrong information leads to several misconceptions in children, such as dilemma of categorizing Virus among living or non-living, comparison of cells of multicellular organisms with Acellular organism, inspite of the fact that the multicellular organisms never have a single form of cells. In fact several specialized forms of cells are present in an organism in different organs, which perform different functions. The paradigm blocks the thought process of children that a cell has an identity even outside the body of an organism and it is in itself functional, whether inside or outside the body of an organism.
  Now let us discuss some solution to this problem, so that the scientific endeavor can be saved from the dogmas of paradigm boundedness and irrational mob psychology. I think the solution to this problem lies in teaching of science in two ways-
 a) Teaching history of science as a core subject instead of teaching merely the present state of scientific knowledge. This would help children to appreciate the continuous and ever changing nature of science and also to become aware of other paradigms which failed to continue. For this purpose, it must be ensured that the children are able to acknowledge how the theories, which are most acceptable today, have received priority over other contemporary theories.
  b) The other solution to the problem is teaching science from as both the product and process from the very beginning stages of science education, and treating children as young scientists. Children must be trained to reach at scientific facts and theories through induction or deduction using the various processes of science namely- Observation, Hypothesis, Prediction, Experimentation, Analysis and drawing Inferences and Conclusions. In this approach the role of teacher needs to change from a donor of ready-made knowledge to a resource person and a guide, who helps children at every stage of doing science and also in comparing the conclusions with contemporary theories.
 Although the above two proposed solutions themselves would create several methodological and resource problems like availability of time, training of teachers, handling discipline problems, risks involved in handling of costly or hazardous equipments etc., but I think if the real rationality of science is to be saved, then some or the other solution to these problems need to be found out through discussions and debates.