Pos

The exclusivity view states, that there is only one type of knowledge which is science.
The view claims that Science is the only respectable kind of knowledge. Superstition, pseudoscience, ideology and other forms of knowledge are not reliable and not seen as knowledge.

The ranking view states that there are different kinds of knowledge which can be put into a hierarchical order. Science is at the top of this order (one reason: science fulfils the attestation function, whereas other kinds of knowledge often only fulfil the revealing function). Popper is a proponent of this view (but promotes that we need standards -> Falsifiability)

The exclusivity view seems to be hopeless, because there are many more types of knowledge apart from science. (Otherwise one could think, that everything is science…)
Since knowledge can be defined as a justified true belief it is obvious that there is more than just science that can be categorised a belief which is justified and true, for example knowledge about one’s own name.

According to the classical definition, knowledge is a justified true belief. To define knowledge further, 2 questions can be posed regarding the genus proximum: to what class of entities does the object belong? and the differentia specifica: what makes an object, which belongs to a certain class of entities, different.

Is hard to say, professor thinks he is on the ranking view. He did not explicitly say it, but first of all he does have a criteria of demarcation which implies there is a difference. He justified that he is not an irrationalist.

It is Puzzle Solving. First, is not a very spectacular activity. But everyone knows and works on the known problems

Science is a highly recognised kind of knowledge, which, again, can be defined as justified true beliefs. Since science with its changing and developing theories and research steadily raises questions, searches for answers and uncovers facts, it can be stated that science steadily comes closer to the truth. However, we can never be sure whether scientific theories we believe in are in fact true. Therefore, science tracks the truth.

One can state Science provides us with the most respectable kind of knowledge. We cannot say that our current scientific theories are true but we believe that science tracks the truth, which means that it approximates what really is the case and we believe that our theories constantly come closer to what really is the truth.
Truth is a difficult concept and many scientists would not subscribe the fact that science deals with truth

The attestation function attests beliefs and can give proof while the revealing function can point out and give beliefs. Art and religion can reveal and therefore give us justified true beliefs. So, art and religion can be a source of belief (example: a novel).

But in contrary, they cannot attest beliefs, as science is able to (example: it would be strange to state, that one’s knowledge/proof is derived from a novel).

Set of assumptions, common set of problems accepted as "the problems" that the scientific community has to work on

It is not self-evident, what science is and how we can distinguish it from pseudoscience.
Therefore, first of all it is important to examine what science is “made of” (its nature): Science is granted a high authority in modern times. And in the light of the ranking view, science is the most respectable kind of knowledge (science trumps). Bearing in mind the attestation function, only science seems to be able to fulfil it properly, compared to other sources of knowledge. More extreme views like Scientism even think that science will be able to solve all future problems.

Second, the aspect of legitimacy can be related to the question of scientific authority and whether this authority is viewed as legitimate or not. People with other kinds of knowledge (e.g. religious or economic etc.) often claim scientific authority for themselves. Because of this, it is necessary to develop criteria to distinguish between these types of knowledge. In this case, the attestation function mentioned abov

• Rule of epistemic authority: Give up non-scientific beliefs which are in conflict with well-confirmed scientific propositions!
• Rule of action-guiding authority: Do not base your actions on beliefs that are in conflict with well-confirmed scientific propositions!
• A person who accepts both rules fully acknowledges the authority of science.

Scientism is an extreme version of believing in the authority of science and science’s beneficial effect. People (e.g. Kitcher) believe that all (future) questions and problems will be answered and solved by science (e.g. the climate change).

o Increasing number of scientific insights
• Means that today, we know more, than ten years ago, and less than it will in ten years from now
o Increasing depth of scientific insights
• Means that science makes progress in uncovering details
o Increasing accurateness of science
• Bit by bit, sciences substitutes roughly correct views by precise ones
o Increasing coherence of science
• Step by step, science gets rid of inconsistencies between different theories

Popper challenged the following points: (a) Science is reliable because it is based on systematic observation;(b) Scientific theories are obtained by drawing inductive conclusions from observations; (c) - Science gives us a true description of the world by means of systematic observation. Only science can inform us about the true nature of the world.

He said that the acquisition of scientific knowledge should not proceed inductively, because observations are only interpretations in the light of theories. According to this, systematic observation does not produce perfectly reliable knowledge and thus, science does not give us the true representation of the world.

- 1. Accept the fallibility of science (but keep the faith in the possibility of truth). - 2. Test your favorite theory in the most demanding fashion
- 3. Formulate informative theories (be courageous)
- 4. Give up falsified theories/theoretical claims
- "conventionalist twist": The counterevidence is reinterpreted, so it no longer contradicts the theory
- Popper believed Marxism and Psychoanalysis to be empirically empty theories - they lack falsifiability
- According to Popper, in an open society, scientists should follow epistemic virtues

A Conventionalist Twist describes the process, when a theory, that is falsifiable and was refuted, is re-interpreted by its followers in order to keep the theory unrefuted. This process is accompanied by a watering down of the content of the theory, which in the end makes it irrefutable and thus non-scientific.

Trial and error doesn’t rank Science, according to LAKATOS. But instead you could give it up…

• When there is a superior theory, which makes the theory inferior
• A theory is inferior, when it is “degenerating”
• A theory is degenerating, when it has less predictive power than the “new” theory

The “hard core”: The main parts of a theory that the scientific community is not willing to give up, e.g. rational choice theory in economics (there are millions of anomalies to this theory, but the rational choice theory is not questioned); it’s protected by
• The “protective belt”: Defines the scope of application of a theory (“The theory does not apply to this, but only to that”), or the theory is connected with other (auxiliary) hypotheses, that make the theory work”. It serves to remove contradictions between observations and the hard core.
• A “heuristic” of problems to be solved: "a problem-solving-machinery", that works constantly on integrating unsolvable problems and anomalies (can even turn them into positive evidence)

”There are no universally applicable methodological rules or universally valid epistemic virtues to guarantee scientific success.” Thus, it can be good to be stubborn and continue developing seemingly falsified theories (contradicting Popper). Proved with historical evidence: tower-argument and Galileo’s instrument for Copernican theory.

It claims that a model or hypothesis cannot be refuted conclusively by experiment.
Quote: “The only thing the experiment teaches us, is that among the propositions used to predict the phenomenon and to establish whether it would be produced, there is at least one error; but where this error lies is just what it does not tell us.”

No, he claims the contrary: Conversion results due to rational choices. Scientists do not revise theories under the pressure of rational argument (based on sceptical considerations or observational data), they convert to a new paradigm if more and more people respond to persuasion. Scientific revolution responds to scientific crisis. If a growing number of people gets dissatisfied with the explanation that a paradigm can give, it is a natural and rational response to shift paradigms. And since the new paradigm is as fallible and unprovable as the old one, people have to be persuaded and hence convert due to good reason

Prescience – critical discussion of fundamental issues, absence of (a scientific community and thus a) shared paradigm, e. g. philosophy

Normal science – conformist & consensual, puzzle solving, scientific community solves puzzles within a shared paradigm, everyone is committed to the same rules and practices, continuation of a particular research tradition

Paradigm Change / Paradigm Shift – after the completion of a paradigm change a new scientific community is established; sometimes one can even refer to it as

Scientific revolution – social community shares a new and completely different outlook on the world; goes on with normal Science.

The purpose of philosophy of science is to examine the nature and justification of scientific authority

openness, tolerance
— Acknowledge that possibility that strange theories might be true and that unconventional methods might lead to good results. Thus, be tolerant and willing to learn from seemingly outlandish appoaches.

Scientific knowledge does not constitute objective knowledge

here is no reality external to ourselves (reality is a mere social construction)

Latour

Static Nominalism and Dynamic Nominalism.
Static Nominalism says a) All categories are created by human beings
b) Once they are created, they are fixed, and Dynamic says a) ) Many categories come from nature and are not created
b) Our categories are not static, but category and the categorized interact

Standpoint theory
Postmodernism
Empiricism

Postmodernism – rejects claims of epistemic privilege, emphasizing instead the contingency and instability of the social identity of knowers, and consequently of their representations.
Empiricism – seeks standards, within a naturalized framework, for differentiating the circumstances in which situatedness generates error and in which it constitutes a resource that can be harnessed to advance knowledge.

A Movement in feminist POS that identifies a particular social perspective as epistemically priviledged

- Lakatos describes science as 'research programs'
- "hard core" of tenaciously defended hypotheses
- "protective belt" of auxiliary, changeable hypotheses
- protective belt serves to remove contradictions between observations and the hard core
- "heuristic", which Lakatos calls "a problem-solving-machinery", that works constantly on integrating unsolvable problems and anomalies
- All theories - scientific and pseudoscientific - are under pressure of anomalies in all stages of their development
- "degenerating research programs" lack behind the facts and do not yield to new predictions (pseudoscience)
- "progressive research programs" make dramatic, unexpected and stunning predictions (science)

- according to the Duhem-Quine-Thesis, it is never possible to refute a single hypothesis solely on the basis of conflicting empirical evidence
- conflicting empirical evidence only shows, that there is at least one error
- it is unclear, where precisly the error lies in the theoretical network
- stated by the french physicist Duhem and later by the american analytical philosopher Quine - this poses a significant problem for Poppers falsificationism
- Poppers criterion of demarcation between science and pseudoscience cannot possibly be met by any science

- the main feature of David Bloor’s "Strong Program"
- both true and false, and rational and irrational ideas, in as far as they are collectively held, should all equally be the object of sociological curiosity
- They should all be explained by reference to the same kinds of cause
- In all cases, the analyst must identify the local, contingent causes of belief
- formulated in opposition to the earlier assumption of research, that true (or rational) beliefs
are to be explained by reference to reality, while false (or irrational) beliefs are explained by reference to the distorting influence of society

- investigation about the history of categories for people ('human kinds')
- vector of labelling from above, from a community of experts who create a "reality" that some people make their own
- This is often an instrument of power for the ruling class, that tries to shape the self- conceptions of individuals belonging to other classes
- Claims to scientific authority on the definition of human kinds can be understood as part of the vector from above
- the vector from below: of the autonomous behavior of the person so labelled, which presses from below, creating a reality every expert must face
- The way that people actually live and understand themselves puts constraints on scientific authority and can challenge scientific definitions of human kinds
- e.g. people writing about the history of homosexuality seem to disagree about the relative importance of the two vectors

- science is on a par with myths and religions which have therefore claim for validity
- incompatible with the ranking view
- main components are Cognitive relativism (truth-value is relative to framework) + Anti- Objecttivism (framework of science is not not better (more credible, reliable, accurate) than framework of non-scientific sources of belief.
- there are many ways of seeing the world, and science is just one of them
- realist would refer to an independent reality, in correspondence to which only one of the two claims can be true. The cognitive relativist denies the possibility of such a reference
- evv presupposes relativism (in the sense of the description-dependence of facts), but the reverse does not follow: Cognitive relativism does not imply the evv
- The main components of the equal validity view are the fact that these are different kinds of knowledge such as scientific knowledge, religion, myths.

- Science is granted a high authority in modern societies
- it is not self-evident, what science is and how we can distinguish it from pseudoscience
- the claims to scientific authority are not self-evident
- epistemic authority of science
- ranking view
- "action-guiding authority" of science
- "Scientism"
- there is seldom simple consensus between scientists
- science constantly challenges its own views
- other social groups (religious, moral, economic) publically claim scientific authority for themselves
- the study of the philosophy of science can enable individuals, to form their own critical judgements on the legitimacy of such claims

- Lakatos describes science as 'research programs'
- "hard core" of tenaciously defended hypotheses
- "protective belt" of auxiliary, changeable hypotheses
- protective belt serves to remove contradictions between observations and the hard core
- "heuristic", which Lakatos calls "a problem-solving-machinery", that works constantly on integrating unsolvable problems and anomalies
- All theories - scientific and pseudoscientific - are under pressure of anomalies in all stages of their development
- "degenerating research programs" lack behind the facts and do not yield to new predictions (pseudoscience)
- "progressive research programs" make dramatic, unexpected and stunning predictions (science)

Aaccording to the traditional explanation... ...science is reliable, because it is based on systematic
observation.
...science gives us an increasingly appropriate description of the world (by means of systematic observation).
...science informs us about the true nature of the world.

However, 1) Thesis of theory-ladenness of observation (no obs. without theoretical background)
(2) Thesis of underdetermination of scientific theories by
observation. (observations are compatible with more than one theory)
(3) Thesis of social relativity of theory choice (theory choice depends on social factors)

It means that the superiority of one theory to another, cannot be proven in a debate, instead by persuasion. Two paradigms have no common theoretical denominator in order to solve their disputes.

No, all Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend, Lakatos would say no. Even though the picture is not wrong, it is also not true.

Popper and Laktos

The criterion of Demarcation is the answer. Popper: Falsificationismo, something being falsifiable is scientific. Feyerabend: there is none, demarcation is rethorical (eq val view). Lakatos: risky predictions

Objectivity are claims about knowledge "i know". Reality are claims about the true world.

It is an existence that is no longer framed by the choice between never and nowhere and always and everywhere.

Germs, gravitation etc. have their relative existence. But relative to what?
Relative for example to time and space (very abstract). Relative existence in a sense that allows to say that the germs didn’t exist in the sense that Pasteur dind’t exist before he was born. Latour compares the existence of the germs and how they came into being with the act of birth. They were created and discovered.
So they are also relative to the practices of scientists, theoretical activity, the use of instruments, the setup of experiments, the invention of concepts, the production of models.
Objects in nature have no independent existence, they are not there without these specific practices. They are only there because of the ongoing scientific activity.

It studies the way in which gender does and ought to influence our conceptions of knowledge, knowing subjects and practices of justification.

Sex are the biological differences between male and female. Gender is the socual construction besides these differences assigned roles and norms on account of sexual characteristics.

Cognitive relativism denies the existence of absolute truth in the following sense: The truth-value of all empirical statements is relative to a given conceptual and theoretical framework.
Our knowledge of facts is structured by presupposed conceptual and theoretical frameworks. It cannot exist on its own without reference. We cannot justify scientific authority with reference to independent facts.

The commonsense view regarding the existence of the Tuberculosis bacillus is that it already existed before, but was only discovered by Koch in 1882.
Latour deviates from the commonsense answer.