Other useful links: Bio/Geo/CS250, MainModelingWiki, ModelingCourseSuggestions
1. Readings
-
Collins, P. 2000. Symmes Hole. Mc Sweeney's Quarterly 4.
-
Kuhn, T. 1996. The nature of normal science. Pp. 23 - 34 in, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago.
-
Popper, K. 1959. A survery of some fundamental problems. Pp. 27 - 48 in, The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Hutchinson and Co., London.
2. Summary
This semester we will be having dozens of conversations about the role that models play in science. Before we get to that, however, we should be confident that we understand science itself.
More than anyone else in the modern philosophy and sociology of science, Sir Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn have shaped how we understand science -- how it works and what it means.
Discussion:
According to Popper, how does science progress? What role do models play in that process? (Add text here.)
According to Kuhn, how does science "progress"? What role do models play in that process? (Add text here.)
Although Kuhn states that paradigm-based research forces "nature into the preformed and relatively inflexible box that the paradigm supplies" (24) it does in fact allow science to progress and develop. "By focusing attention on a small range of relatively esoteric problems, the paradigm forces scientists to investigate some part of nature in a detail and depth that would otherwise be unimaginable" (24).
Notes for 1/23/03 - PLEASE FEEL FREE TO MAKE ANY CHANGES YOU THINK ARE NECESSARY. I tried to take the best notes possible but I might have gotten some stuff wrong.
Kuhn
Background:
sociologist of science
book was out in 1962 and it has remained unchanged since then
Debunching notion of science as an adventure 1. Main idea
science, progression, development of science consists of periods of normal science
Normal science is characterized by a paradigm
which is a body of accepted theory/successful application/definitions/accepted observations/experiments. All of these define the paradigm.
Paradigms attract people because of job opportunities/departments which are created.
At some point, an anomaly in the paradigm triggers a crisis in the science. Then more and more people find anomalities within the paradigm. Finally, somebody proposes a new paradigm which is the beginning of the scientific revolution. Questions to think about:
How does normal science work?
How do models fit in?
How does theory work? Mop up work:
Mature science (pg. 24) is not paradigmatic science
mop-up work
big idea with lots of little ideas around it. Only the big idea is explored. These little ideas are within the paradigm but are not necessarily formulated from the paradigm. They might have been formulated from the original idea.
Fact vs. Observations: There is a difference between fact and observation. At some point, observations can be taken for facts because these observations can be reproduced over and over.
Paradigm often used to explain facts and figure out facts
A fact is something which is observed to be true but we can't guaranteed 100%
Flow Chart Normal science consists of mop up work used in normal science to make more specific Paradigms which consists of Theories which hold Promise regarding the explanation of Facts.
Popper
Philosopher of science
His big concern: to go from specific instances to make facts about the world is wrong. Therefore, inductive reasoning/methods are wrong.
Induction after enough observations (n) you make a generalization. Popper believes you can't do that because you never know what n+1 is.
How he thinks it works: It's not about proving things to be true. It's about proving them false. The only theories worth anything are the ones that seem unlikely -- easy to falsify.
Think About:
How Symmes's argume works? What are the logical steps from his observation to his theories? What's wrong with it?
