Class 01

We began our discussion in the class with the question:

"What is the subject matter of Philosophy of Science [PoS]?"

The subject matter of various sciences lies in the world. For example for physics the subject
matter is the physical system, for biology the subject matter is a living system and so on. So
what is that we want to probe in the subject of PoS. Some of the suggestions that came up were
as follows: The abstract nature of science, what is behind science, the scientific method,
nature of science.

One of the answers to this can be that we are trying to study science itself. Science, its
processes, products themselves become the object of study. In PoS we try to understand the
process of doing science.

"So what are the phenomenon we try to look for when we want to study science?"

Simon Blackburn in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy has an entry under the topic of PoS:

"The investigation of questions that arise from reflection upon science and scientific
practice. Such questions include:

      What distinguishes the methods of science?

      Is there a clear demarcation between science and other disciplines, and where do
      we place enquiries such as history, economics and sociology?
      
      Are scientific theories probable, or more in the nature of provisional conjectures?

      Can they verified, or falsified?

      What distinguishes good explanation from bad explanation?

      Might there be one unified science embracing all the special sciences?
      [Theories of Everything?]

Some of the other issues that were raised included
a) Do scientits fabricate truth?
b) Is Science process or product?
c) Is it value neutral?
d) Does sci exists independent of us?
e) Are the choices made in sci rational?
f) Can interpretations be objective?
g) Who are the people who can be placed in the category of scientists?

Few though provoking questions were also asked like:
1.What is the problem in learning Science?
Is it improper teaching which is confusing or is it improper learning which is misunderstanding.
2.Why should we learn/teach Science?
Learning or teaching science is an Uphill reaction,it is not spontaneous,it doesn't appear so naturally to us.It is counter intuitive,it isn't common sense.
3.When do you need to know Metaknowledge?
Probably when we need a remedy to our problem.
4.Can we do science without Maths/Formalism?
Probably we need them to reduce interpretations.

I think it will be quite useful if we all start thinking of the examples of theories, articels, conjetures, which fall into the categories we have discussed. it will help us to understand the crtietria like falisifibiality, pseudo sci etc in a deeper sense:
Lets put down examples of theories which are

1. purely Scientific

2. part of Pseudo sci

3. or were falsifiable

4. formulated on the basis of
a) inductive inferences
b) deductive inferences

5. Conflicting theories on a phenomena