Philosophy of Science 134E
Instructor: Christian Lacroix
Nov. 30, 2004
Defending Science Within Reason
Susan Haack
•	UK-born American professor of philosophy and law at the University of Miami
•	Argues that scientific enquiry is just specialized everyday enquiry.
•	There is no distinctive scientific method, but science still enjoy a privileged epistemic status.

Two opposing camps
The Old Deferentialists
•	Those supporting the received view of science, according to which science is perfectly rational.
•	E.g., inductivists, falsificationists
The New Cynics
•	Those rejecting that science has a privileged epistemic status.
•	E.g., Social Constructivists, Post-Modernists, some radical feminists.

Haack’s reply
They are both wrong.
Science is messier and more complicated than what the Old Deferentialists describe.
But science is much more constrained by evidence than what the New Cynics claim.

An analogy: Haack compares scientific enquiry with doing a very complex giant crosswords puzzle.  There are clues, but many are ambiguous.

“Nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking”
Scientific enquiry is simply a specialization of everyday enquiry.
Essentially the same thing that what we do to find out things.
There is no kind of inference or procedure used by all and only scientists.  Scientists simply use the same kinds of inference and procedures used by anybody who wants to find something out.

Science is special in that it has developed specialized tools (instruments, models, etc.) and techniques (mathematics, controlled experiments, etc.) to figure out things, but none of these techniques is used by all the sciences.

Example: controlled experiments
Not used by all scientists.  E.g., astronomers and evolutionary theorists.
But some non-scientists use them.  E.g., auto mechanics, plumbers, cooks.

Science is a kind of inquiry
Inquiry is an attempt to discover the truth about a topic.
•	Genuine inquiry is a good-faith effort to arrive at the truth of the matter in question, whatever it may be.
•	May result in realizing that the question is misconceived.
•	May result in many new questions.

Not to confuse with pseudo-inquiry, which is quite common everywhere, including in the academy, politics, etc.
•	Sham reasoning, making a case for a proposition while being already committed to its truth;
•	Fake reasoning, making a case for some proposition which truth is indifferent to you, but which you believe will benefit yourself. 

Kinds of inquiry
Empirical inquiry
Natural-scientific, historical, forensic, everyday inquiry, etc.
Non-empirical inquiry
About logic and mathematics.

Any inquiry can be better conducted – more scrupulous, more thorough, more imaginative, etc. – or worse.

Scientific inquiry
Aim to give a true account of how some part or aspect of the world is.
But not just any true account will do.
E.g., trivial tautology will not do.
“Either the universe originated in a big bang, or not.”
Rather, it requires a substantial, significant, explanatory account.

Empirical inquirers:
•	Make informed conjectures about the possible explanation of the phenomena that concern them,
•	Check out how well these conjectures stand up to the evidence,
•	Use their judgement whether to stick with their conjecture, drop it, or modify it.
Scientific inquiry

Empirical inquirers need:
1- Imagination
To think up plausible potential explanations of problematic phenomena, to devise ways to get the evidence they need, and to figure out potential source of errors.
2- Care, skill, and persistence
To seek out any relevant evidence.
3- Intellectual honesty
The moral fiber to resist the temptation to avoid unfavorable evidence, or to manipulate it if one cannot avoid the unfavorable evidence.
4- Rigorous reasoning
To figure out the consequences of their conjectures.
5- Good judgment
In assessing the weight of evidence, unclouded by personal wishes.

Inquiry and inference
According to the Old Deferentialists, scientists use inference to make informed conjectures and to check the conjectures against the evidence.
Thus, the use of inference (both deductive and inductive) is what distinguishes science from non-science and pseudoscience.
Thus the importance of logic for science.

Haack grants that scientists use inference, but deny that this is unique to scientists.
•	Detectives, investigative journalists, historians, and so on, all use inference.
So logic alone will not explain the success of science.

The success of science
Science has succeeded more than other kinds of answer to the questions we have about the world.
E.g., legends, myths, religion, pseudo-sciences, etc.
This success cannot be explained merely by reference to a scientific method (Old Deferentialist), nor by reference merely to historical contingencies (New Critics).

We need a multi-dimensional explanation:
1- The nature and structure of evidence.  E.g., inference, etc.
2- Historical contingencies.  E.g., ‘critical mass’ of talents and resources
3- Subject-matter of science.  Natural phenomena are all interconnected, so that answers to one part of the “crossword puzzle” serves as clues for other parts.

4- Development of specialized tools and techniques
•	Help to the imagination.  E.g., Models, though experiments, etc.
•	Help to the senses.  E.g., microscope, telescope, etc.
•	Help to reasoning.  E.g., logic and mathematics
•	Helps to evidence-sharing and intellectual honesty.  E.g., journals, verification, etc.

Haak and the Demarcation Problem
What distinguishes science from pseudoscience?
Science is a form of empirical inquiry (search for truth), while many pseudoscience are not.  E.g., parapsychology
Even if they are form of empirical inquiry, some pseudoscience advocates are not made in good faith, or with good judgement. E.g., Marxism

What distinguishes science from non-science? 
Even good empirical inquiries are not necessarily science; they could be non-science if they do not pretend to be science.  E.g., where to get the best price for this DVD?
Science aims to give substantial, significant, and explanatory account.