In this post, I’ll be sharing my key takeaways from Samir Okasha’s ‘Philosophy of Science’. This book offers a comprehensive introduction to the core philosophical questions underpinning scientific inquiry.
I decided to read this book for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I have become more interested in philosophy over the last couple of years.
Secondly, I’m fascinated by the interplay between science and technology, where scientific advancements often pave the way for new technologies, which, in turn, fuel further scientific exploration.
This section aims to address the fundamental question: what is science, and what distinguishes it from non-scientific disciplines?
What is science?
A defining characteristic of science is its reliance on the scientific method to enhance our understanding of the natural world.
The scientific method provides a systematic framework for investigating and understanding phenomena. It combines observation and experimentation with the development of theories.
Ideally, scientific theories should be falsifiable – that is, they should make predictions that can be tested and potentially disproven through experimentation or observation.
To summarise, a scientific discipline like physics seeks to develop theories, such as the theory of relativity, to explain how things work, and then rigorously tests these theories through observation and experimentation.
The power of scientific inference
Scientific inference relies on both deductive and inductive reasoning.
Deductive inference, or deduction, is a form of reasoning where we derive a new truth from existing truths.
A classic example is: ‘All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal.’
Deduction requires knowledge of both rules and facts and operates within the realm of certainties.
In the example above, ‘All men are mortal’ is the premise.
‘Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal’ is the conclusion.
The truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. If the premise is true, the conclusion must also be true.
Inductive inference encompasses any inference that is not deductive. It’s important to remember that correlation does not equal causation. Inductive reasoning uses probability to assess the likelihood of an inference being correct, and this probability is refined through experimentation and observation.
Induction involves reasoning from specific facts to create general rules, which can then be used to infer other facts that are likely to be true. It allows us to identify patterns and make predictions that deduction alone cannot provide. This type of reasoning is intuitive to humans.
Can science explain everything?
Before reading this book, I would have likely answered yes. However, many philosophers argue that science cannot explain everything, pointing to the idea that ‘nothing can explain itself’ – an abstract argument in itself.
This presents a compelling argument against the notion that science can explain everything.
Conclusion
Writing the first draft of posts like this is valuable because it helps me identify gaps in my knowledge, particularly when exploring unfamiliar territory like the philosophy of science.
The initial layout, generated with AI assistance, suggested exploring metaphysics and our understanding of reality. However, my knowledge gained from this book proved insufficient to delve into those areas adequately.
However, the book reinforced the idea that science is about understanding the phenomena around us, while technology involves combining components to harness these phenomena.
Therefore, as our scientific understanding progresses, so too will our technological capabilities.
Further reading
- Samir Okasha, Philosophy of Science
- Jerry Neumann, AI and the Structure of Reasoning