Why Bother With Philosophy of Science?! | On Theory & Reality by Peter Godfrey-Smith

[@arthillside5837]

Thank You.

[@brenboothjones]

Fantastic video, as always. Your explanation of the problems of induction and competing paradigms made me think of Foucault’s notion of ‘episteme’: that the contingency of human progress extends all the way into the thinkable. Literally what we are capable of formulating and defining is overdetermined by so many historical, cultural, epochal, biological etc factors. And that only through the sweep of paradigms do new realms of knowledge enter common understanding. For example, Newtonian physics seemed irrefutable until the brilliance of Einstein completely shifted our understanding of space-time. Anyway, thought-provoking video as always! Keep up the excellent work.

[@ToReadersItMayConcern]

You bring up a great point! Once something is 'good enough' we cling to it, and then it requires others-perhaps deviant, mischievous, clever, and unorthodox others-who shake us out of our equilibrium into recognizing something we have been ignoring. That's the beauty and worth of difference: it allows for enough deviation that we can discover something new.

[@Cobaltdragon]

Very much enjoyed and great examples to make the points 👍

[@ToReadersItMayConcern]

Glad you enjoyed it! Thank you!

[@rbg9866]

Kuhn's insight into paradigm change can appear to be about what's fashionable but it's more useful to think about one framework of understanding some phenomena taking into account and explaining more than another framework currently being used. Over time there is a dynamic of "transcend and include" where later frameworks are able to take into account earlier framework's understandings. Check out Ken Wilbur's concept of holarchy. It applies usefully to Kuhn's ideas about paradigm shift. There's also a brilliant little book that predates Kuhn called "Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact" by Ludwik Fleck. It's fascinating and discusses "thought collectives." Great job on your video!

[@ToReadersItMayConcern]

I greatly appreciate these insights and recommendations! I plan to continue reading from and about Kuhn, as he's a majorly influential figure (purchased The Structure of Scientific Revolutions not too long ago). I'll be looking into Fleck and Wilbur's work, too. I try my best not to give up on a thinker just because my first impression is negative. That would seem to me too reliant on the luck of however I was introduced to them. The general notion of a paradigm shift seems essentially valuable as a description; I think my aversion has been to my grasp of Kuhn's specific characterization of it thus far. Once again, thanks for being so helpful and informative in your comment!

[@aadamtx]

Good overview - I'll have to see if our bookstore has a copy (the Philosophy of Science & Technology is right across from our POS, so I see the collection every week). And I note you have The Dance To The Music of Time right behind your head - one of our regulars picked up the last half this week, but I've never been able to get beyond the third volume).

[@ToReadersItMayConcern]

That's so awesome you work at a bookstore! One thing that's immensely helpful about the book I covered is the author offers Further Reading for every chapter, so if any one thinker or concept intrigues you, you'll have plenty to follow-up on later. It's overall a slim overview, so the extra reading material is essential and much-appreciated.

[@TriumphalReads]

Really enjoyed this video, great discussion on an important topic. I've read Godfrey-Smith's Metazoa and Other Minds. I'll have to pick this one up now as well. Thanks!

[@ToReadersItMayConcern]

I'm in the opposite position: eager to read Metazoa and Other Minds after this slim volume of his. He balances clarity with personal insight throughout the book I review here, so I look forward to seeing how a more directly persuasive work of his reads. I love watching your stuff, so thanks for stopping by!

[@jurquhartIII]

Engaging video! Thanks! On the discussion of Popper's appeal to falsifiability you noted that "if we cannot measure it then there is no way to falsify it." This relationship between numeracy and correctness reminds me of Poovey's "History of the Modern Fact," which argues that the application of numbers to the observed phenomena of social experience is an historical product.16th century double account books and useful public enumeration (maps, taxes, census, etc.) were presented as, in part, solutions to the "problem of induction." These set the groundwork for institutionalized statistics and, later, Popper's own intellectual baggage.

[@ToReadersItMayConcern]

This is fascinating. Thank you so much for sharing! Poovey's book reminds me of Objectivity by Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison, which similarly breaks down the history of objectivity, or the notion of properly measuring and capturing something certain in the world. There are countless decisions in the very act of measuring, and so a certain degree of arbitrariness or subjectivity seems unavoidable. This is a subject I expect to ponder and read more about for many years to come.

[@jurquhartIII]

@@ToReadersItMayConcern I'll check the book out. And me too! I find that scientists recoil when I, a non-scientist, exclaim that objectivity is rooted in methodological hegemony. The fruitful task of accepting the necessity of arbitrary leaps and focusing instead on how to build meaningful consensus for such leaps is thus ignored. It is not helpful to deny them. Thanks again for the time you put into your channel.

[@spikedaniels1528]

Thank you for this informative (and somewhat entertaining) introduction and overview to the Philosophy of Science. It did what it’s supposed to do… got me looking further. After reading a few Amazon reviews I decided to begin with Philosophy of Science: a Beginner’s Guide to see if I can in fact gear up for this Theory and Reality. Love what you bring to BookTube! 🥸

[@ToReadersItMayConcern]

That book looks like it dives into some of the real-world consequences of certain views of science. Fascinating!

[@johnstephen399]

Once again, you've taken a potentially boring topic and made it interesting enough for me to sit through. Keep going.

[@ToReadersItMayConcern]

Thank you! I worry upon finishing that I didn't make the topic inviting enough, but I appreciate comments like yours. Helps me relax a bit.

[@spikedaniels1528]

Soldier on!

[@matiapolano1552]

Nice. I enjoyed the critical analysis . I also like how the book honestly explains how science isn't immune from social and philosophic trends and such. Sounds like a good book to familiarize oneself with something that's so dominant in our culture.

[@ToReadersItMayConcern]

The book is a really, really nice introduction. And it thankfully offers lists of many additional works to read afterward as well.

[@Infinimata]

Wishlisted! This looks like a nice complement to the other books I've been picking up about the philosophy of science.

[@ToReadersItMayConcern]

It has an excellent array of further reading included at the end of each chapter. So expect yourself to tunnel deep within the realm of philosophy of science for a long, long while afterward.

[@materiagrix]

As you probably know I am keeping some time away from BookTube, but I could not not watch this. The scientific method cannot be argued for throughout the scientific method, it has to rely in non scientific reasoning in order to justify itself. A great explanation, I’m glad to see you’re still making videos!

[@ToReadersItMayConcern]

It's great to see you pop up! I hope the break has been serving you well! Yes, science does not stand by itself alone. It is an elaborate project we've embarked upon. It could very well be among the best tools we've created, but it's important to recognize that it is a tool, one that can evolve in time, and we have responsibility in its form and use. What I appreciate about philosophy of science is that it serves as a reminder of how much our intuitions come into play during the act of science, and those intuitions carry much baggage, good and bad.

[@materiagrix]

@@ToReadersItMayConcern Thank you, I couldn’t have said it better!

[@jedjedjedjedjedjed]

Your channel is really cool man !!

[@ToReadersItMayConcern]

Thank you! You're really cool for saying so!

[@maz3808]

Thank you for this great video. I belive Philosophy of science is a must read for scientists in general, it opens up a whole new window on how scientific theories are deduced and how to be critical of such theories as well. I'm a physicist myself and I have been interested in the philosphy of physics for a while. Currently I'm reading "Philosophy of Physics: Quantum Theory" by Tim Maudlin. Very interesting book but if you did not study Quantum Mechanics from academic books you will struggle to understand this book. One interesting aspect in philosophy of physics is the topic of Reductionism vs Emergence. In simple words reductionism claims that everything can be explained by atoms and their interactions. Emergance is contradicting this claim by stating that the universe can evolve new laws not predictable by using only atoms. it was shocking to me to know that there are a phenomenon in physics that we studied and believed to be an existing aspect of a physical system but only to find out that the majority of scientists view such a phenomenon as emergent, meaning it's just a mathematical term made up to simplfy a model in physics. of course I only realised this by reading philosophy of physics papers.

[@ToReadersItMayConcern]

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree! It's vital to grasp what it is you're even doing in science; otherwise you could stumble along mistakes already illuminated by thinkers of the past. Though, at bottom, we have to follow practical considerations for the sake of investigation (some philosophies can wind so tightly that they trap themselves into an inert position). Do you read any Oxford Handbooks, by chance? I highly recommend the Oxford Handbook on Philosophy of Science. It's more for academics than the general public, but you seem more than equipped to handle it. And I think the layers of detail and complex considerations will serve you well. It also may be worth looking into philosophy of language, if only to help unwind some of the tighter knots of disagreement; when you spend enough time with philosophy of language, it can help you notice the differences in translation or description that seemingly occur ceaselessly with words, the ways in which key disagreements can fall onto matters of how something is described more than how something is (for instance, I could fixate on the notion of a "nation" as either being the culmination of the people within it or a higher layer concept of historically-bound land, and yet in my USE of that word I end up referring to much the same thing in either case, so it becomes about the use that matters more than my perceived definition of the term; this is complex, so I'll have to do a video on it someday; I find it to be a ubiquitous problem).

[@boatofcar3273]

Great video. I watched the whole thing. I hadn’t connected induction with empiricism before. Karl Popper seems like someone worth reading more of!

[@ToReadersItMayConcern]

Oh, I think you'll get a ton out of Karl Popper's work! I highly recommend his work The Open Society and Its Enemies, which is where I started with him; though the book Conjectures and Refutations may be a more straightforward summation and introduction (Open Society is a dense read that focuses at length on the minutiae of refuting Plato, Hegel, and Marx, but in the process of that lengthy refutation it builds to remarkable points about scientific development and society generally).

[@juliocesarfs15]

Awesome work, man. Keep it up!🔥

[@ToReadersItMayConcern]

I very much appreciate your support! Thank you!

[@joshsnow5770]

Another fantastic and informative video

[@ToReadersItMayConcern]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@spikedaniels1528]

Thanks!

[@ToReadersItMayConcern]

Oh, you're so great! Thank you!

[@Carol-xc8fz]

Good subject. Thank you.

[@ToReadersItMayConcern]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@DrGBhas]

Brilliant insights.

[@ToReadersItMayConcern]

You're so kind. Thank you!

[@Thetrilingualreader]

I can't count how many times we proved 1+1=2 in college (and that is not always the case). We had to prove axb=bxa and had to discover through actual proof that axb = bxa is actually an assumption we make about the set we work in but that doesn't work in other systems (called the commutative property). That in certain systems 2x2 = 0, that sometimes 3x2=1 (and so forth, it actually turns into some sort of sudoku). As someone who never believed in religion (resonating with what you said about how do you know if something is right? Is one of the earlier thoughts i had in which in retrospect made me realise wait I never actually believed in this, and that even at the time, i realised so many things ppl take for granted are ridiculous af), it made me always wonder how not only my classmates did not see the transferable quality of what we learned, but that they applied extremely harmful misogynistic structures without any rhyme or reason as if the material they learned is just another thing to get an A (and btw they didn't. Half the class failed the midterms). Abstract algebra in which we learned this is foundation for many modern technologies. Anyway, if we can't always guarantee that 1+1=2, then what can we say about the other things we just accept?

[@ToReadersItMayConcern]

The two Hofstadter books I brought up might really be for you: he goes into great detail about symbolic systems and especially translations (and loss of information between translations). A lot of that could wondrously expand on your interests, especially since you're already primed to appreciate the complexities of musical structure. There's also the Oxford Handbook of Epistemology and of Skepticism that you'd probably adore. They nicely have multiple authors so you get a range of perspectives. Serious academic works, but the epistemology one is especially nicely edited and organized.

[@Thetrilingualreader]

​@@ToReadersItMayConcern (ok i just finished the video so a few more things to add) We actually learned philosophy of science here in High school. We went on a brief overview from ancient greeks to modern method. We focused mostly on arab scientists, not because we are arab, but a lot of the methodology they invented is still used. I don't know if you learned that in high school in america. Second, it is useful to think of this like Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (in regard to observations piling up). The more you look at something, the more the variables can be skewed. Third, i have a book rec for you. It is a very fun and light hearted book called Plato and a platypus walk into a bar by Cathcart and Klein. They go into details about different reasoning methods through jokes and after that you will start having fun making logical fallacies that "sound correct" 😂 I speak 3 languages fluently i can tell you a LOT is lost in translation 😂 Thank you for the book recs. I found a pdf of the oxford handbook , will download. Can't wait to start gödel, escher, bach. You made me excited for it. Btw: i've read 3 university textbooks (and a half of two) for fun before. So you have here a buddy who understands that need 🥰

[@ToReadersItMayConcern]

Wow, I love your high school course! My high school was inept in various ways, unfortunately (or fortunately, as its absence of rigor turned me into an autodidact). Did that high school class push you toward any particular books on Arab scientific influence? If so, I would love to know! I have a few books on the history of mathematics and science, and they cover non-western influences, but I've yet to find one that covers it thoroughly in a way that feels satisfying (I'm likely limited by what's been translated into English). That said, the four-volume World of Mathematics is worth checking out (sometimes it sells for just $20, which is a crazy steal). Oh, I'm so excited that you're interested in Godel, Escher, Bach! Some advice (if you don't mind unsolicited advice): Chapter 1 and its corresponding dialogue, and Chapter 2 and its corresponding dialogue, should be read in separate sittings, with time spent actually doing the symbolic exercises until you have that eureka moment of grasping the point (that of isomorphic relations between symbolic systems). I originally read the first half of the book like I normally do in a stretched out sitting, but then felt like I was missing something, so I went back and slowed down. Absolutely let yourself slow down in that opening section of the book. Afterward, you should be fine reading at a typical pace. It's just that so much rides on understanding his point in those chapters (and maybe he should have extended and walked readers through a bit more; for instance, it would have been nice for him to define isomorphism in the way he uses it explicitly, but the internet ends up helpful in that case). Keep in mind, too, that the dialogues after each chapter creatively summarize the point of the prior chapter. They end up useful for grasping key insights. As I mentioned in the video, it's possible to dive deeper into more rigorous philosophy and move away from some of his claims, but that doesn't detract from the joy of his passion and the vitality of the connections he illuminates. My adoration for the book has so much to do with the author's attitude: he sparkles in curiosity, playing and seeking and playing, a reminder to allow oneself to cast off certainty and do the same.

[@Thetrilingualreader]

@@ToReadersItMayConcern I was an autodidact simply out of spite and annoyance (hence why I read all these textbooks except one). I hate being told what to do or hearing people talk for long. Also, we are autodidact in the family. My dad worked as an accountant for several companies then for himself despite being forced to drop out at 13. My brother did a business degree but works as a programmer in Switzerland (also completely self taught). We both taught ourselves English, except I was 7, he was ~16. I think the compulsion towards teaching one self is largely a skill one can be born with. I doubt your classmates felt the same compulsion towards teaching themselves as you do, so take pride in that, that the lack of resources alone didn't make you the person you are today. You didn't HAVE to become who you are, but you largely wanted to and worked towards achieving that. And you are a pretty impressive individual :) I don't remember what sources we used (that was 11 years ago) but we started that as intro to philosophy in grade 11 then did heavier topics as part of the Lebanese official exams curriculum in grade 12 so we went over Proust, Freud, Kant, Descartes, Gide (from what I remember), about identity, memory, existence etc. And our system was that you were given a question and you had to write an essay about that question based on the info you learned in class about that but can largely also be personal as long as you arrive to correct conclusion using the data you have. Another cool thing in our curriculum is that biology is like 15% memorization (I know the american system relies on memory in biology). The exam comes in a series of experiments that you have to analyze using the scientific method. Then they give you some of them as exact same but with a different variable and you have to come to a conclusion based on that. I think it is cooler than memorizing a bunch of stuff :). (will send the amazon the link for the world of mathematics to my family because my birthday is coming up wink wink) Thank you for all the info regarding gödel, escher, bach!! I will screenshot and keep in mind. I am pretty sure they will be very helpful. (Also why are you reading a chunky non fiction lying down? tsk tsk tsk) His claims can give one a headache but it is a fun game of "I have the tools to dissect this till everyone at this party here hates my guts but whether I choose to or not is up to me". I think the claims themselves are irrelevant as long as you take away something from his way of thought. I wish more people thought why is this the way it is

[@ToReadersItMayConcern]

@@Thetrilingualreader I'm SO ENVIOUS of your high school class! That sounds amazing, honestly. Thank you for your kindness regarding my character. I'm surprised you don't mind sitting through how lengthy (and perhaps lost) my thoughts can be. I appreciate your patience and consideration. I agree wholeheartedly with your final paragraph. 🙂

[@alexwennerberg]

have you read nietzsche’s discussion of science in part 3 of genealogy of morals? it’s great

[@ToReadersItMayConcern]

I read Genealogy of Morals back in college, so I must have, but it seems to me I should go back and reread as I'm not recalling the specifics. Thanks for pointing me back to that section! Rereading seems to me always better than the first time around! [Edit]: I look back now and am immediately reminded of Nietzsche's flow-He has such a smooth flow in his writing! I think I might do a video on Reading Philosophy for Beauty. If you happen to think of any other writers whose style works in tandem with their ideas, let me know! (In many ways this is an excuse to reread great writers.)

[@olivierdehaas1786]

Schopenhauer

[@alexwennerberg]

@@ToReadersItMayConcern I really like Deleuze’s style - definitely matches his philosophy, but it’s quite inscrutable sometimes

[@MasonKelsey]

Please provide the book title and author here. Flashing the book in your video is frustrating to me when I need it written down here.

[@ToReadersItMayConcern]

The book title and author are in the description, including a link to its Amazon page. It is Theory and Reality by Peter Godfrey-Smith.

[@sm3o]

Another great vid!

[@ToReadersItMayConcern]

Appreciate that!

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

I find it convenient to divide truth into absolute and ampliative. Hmm. Maybe that's absolute, ampliative and pragmatic. Lee's Elucidation strikes again. 'A finite number of words must be made to represent an infinite number of things and possibilities. ' What does 'All swans are white' mean as an ampliative truth? As an absolute truth? As a practical truth? Maybe 'truth' here should be 'proposition'.

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

What. How? What. How? What. How? What as premise.

[@markus-ks9sf]

You don't seem to be doing much thinking if you can't use those words.

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

So what is this chicken supposed to do with this knowledge, absolute knowledge, that one Saturday the farmer is going to cut his head off? Now that is kind of a fairy tale, an analogy--lesson for us humans. What exactly is the lesson supposed to be? No. For me the argument comes from a place of nihilistic cynical pretend wisdom.