cs358 Lecture Notes
Week 2, Tuesday

Scientific computing: creating software tools as part of scientific inquiry.

My personal problem
-------------------

I have lots of ideas about what I think makes science good or bad.
Many of them are uncomfortably ad hoc, as in "I can't define good
science but I know it when I see it."

I would like to have:

1) a better, more general definition, or at least a few
   rules of thumb

2) a vocabulary for explaining my rules to other people

3) some kind of argument I can use to persuade someone else
   that my rules are right, or at least appropriate guidelines
   for evaluating science.

I think I have (1), and I have read just enough POS to adopt some of
their vocabulary for (2).  I am a long way from (3), along with
everyone else.

In the meantime, I amuse myself by inflicting my version of
(1) and (2) on a captive audience, and wave my hands violently
if pressed for (3).


Philosophy of science
---------------------

Science is practiced by scientists.
Philosophy of science is practiced by philosophers.

Three possible motivations for POS:

1) description of what scientists do (maybe different in
   different fields)

2) prescription of what scientists should do

3) theory of science:

   unification: vocabulary for talking about the practice of science

   validation: support for the belief that the ideas that
	       science produces are right (in some sense of right)

   demarcation: rules for distinguishing ideas that are scientific
		(and thus entitled to the support provided by
		validation), and non-scientific things that do
		not enjoy that benefit.

For the most part, philosophers are only interested in (3),
although unification involves a certain degree of (1).

Practicing scientists sometimes get touchy about (2), but that
reaction is probably unwarranted.


Karl Popper -- philosopher of science or crank?
----------------------------------------------

Karl Popper is probably the philosopher of science who
is best known to and best liked among scientists.  Many
of his ideas just feel right to scientists, and provide
some of those rules of thumb (#1 above).

On the other hand, he doesn't seem to get a lot of
respect from philosophers, mostly because his attempts at
#3 have been shown by other philosophers to have some
holes.

If you like Popper, you say that the holes can be patched
and his rules of thumb are still valid.

If you don't like him, you say that he is in the same
boat as everyone else -- too much of #1, not enough #3.

Well, like him or not, he contributed some useful vocabulary (#2),
including, primarily, the word "falsifiable."


Questions
---------

1) Is scientific knowledge useful for philosophers of science?

   1a) Do philosophers of science poke around in scientific
       journals and analyze scientific discourse, or is that
       the domain of sociologists of science?

   1b) Is Popper popular among scientists because he uses
       scientific examples (and seems to understand them) 
       instead of "word games".

   1c) Is Popper unpopular among philosophers because he is
       openly prescriptive?

2) Is philosophical knowledge useful for scientists?  

   2a) Are there results from POS that can make us better
       scientists?  (In other words, can we coerce the 
       philosophers into being normative against their will?)

   2b) Are there results from POS that can persuade someone
       that the scientific approach to answering questions
       is valid, or is the only valid approach?

   2c) Can we use the vocabulary from POS to help talk more
       clearly about what we think is "good science" or
       "bad science."

3) Do philosophers of science and scientists have anything to
   say to each other?