Philosophy of science Assignment group 1

NAME ID CARD
1 ADERAJEN BIRHANU RU1267/13
2 ALAZAR AKILILU RU2398/13
3 ANTENEH ESUBALEW RU1526/12
4 BEZAWIT TILAHUN RU3535/13
5 DANIEL WUBISHFT RU1805/13
6 FEDASA JAMBERE RU3700/13
7 HAYAT ABDUKE RU5191/12
8 HELDANA WENDSEN RU2086/13
9 MENOR GEREMEW RU0957/13
10 MINTESNOT DEGU RU 0078/13
11 MUBARAK YASSIN RU0973/12
12 YESUNEH TAMIRU RU2236/13
13 YONAS TEGENE RU0211/13

Submitted to Roba
Date wed, Nov 2024
1. Elaborate on similarity and difference between science & philosophy.
In an ideal situation, science is just a subset of philosophy, which encompasses all human
knowledge. The limits are not clearly outlined (refer to the Demarcation problem), but generally
science is the examination of the predictable, visible aspects of the world. In other words, it
involves observing the world, identifying patterns, and enhancing our comprehension to make
the patterns more reliable.

In the past, "science" was referred to as "natural philosophy", where "nature" was synonymous
with "the world" as mentioned above. In the present day, philosophy is commonly seen as what
is left of philosophy after music, math, law, and language have been separated from it. What is
left is a mix of vague areas: metaphysics (the exploration of people's perceptions of the world,
although that claim is a matter of debate within metaphysics itself), ethics, morality, and other
difficult to measure subjects. Once a topic is able to be easily measured, it transitions from the
realm of philosophy to a different category

2. Compare and contrast Aristotelian theory of the universe with modern astronomical
model.
Comparing and Contrasting the Modern Astronomical Model with Aristotle's Universe
Aristotle's conception of the universe, which was developed in the fourth century BC, was very
different from the modern astronomical model, which came into being in
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Here's a comparison: Aristotle's Universe:
• Geocentric: Everything revolves around Earth, which is the center of the universe.

• Hierarchical: The Earth is encircled by a concentric sphere with a celestial body embedded in
each.

• Finite: There is a limit to the universe, beyond which nothing exists.

• Unchanging: The Earth is flawed and prone to change, but the celestial spheres revolve in
perfect circles and are constant.

• Perfect: The fifth element that makes up celestial objects, is perfect and unalterable.
• Earth-centered: Since humans live on Earth, it is the most significant object in the universe.

The Sun is at the center of our solar system, and Earth and the other planets revolve around it,
according to the heliocentric model of modern astronomy.

• Infinite: The universe has no boundaries and is infinite.

• Expanding: Galaxies are drifting apart as the universe expands and changes.

• Dynamic: The laws of gravity control the motion of celestial bodies, which travel in
elliptical orbits.

• Diverse: Space objects are composed of a variety of elements and are always evolving.

• Earth as a planet: There are numerous planets in our solar system, including Earth.

3. Briefly review on the historical progress of science and its method from antiquity until
today.
It is thought that practical science developed in ancient civilizations such as Egypt and
Mesopotamia. They are renowned for their historical astronomy, mathematics, medicine,
agriculture, and structural design. Following that, science gradually expanded until the Greeks
transformed it. The Greeks did a good job introducing philosophy. Like many others, including
Aristotle. Following the Greek Revolution, the Middle East disseminated Greek knowledge,
while medieval Europeans confused science and religion. Following then, the discovery of
ancient texts and the advancement of methodology improved learning. Galileo and Francis
Bacon provided explanations of methodical experimentation and observation. Astronomy was
transformed by Galileo's use of the telescope. The scientific revolution and the Enlightenment
came next. The law that Isaac gave serves as the foundation for numerous equations. The
scientific Society evolved into a royal society that disseminated and debated scientific ideas.
Then, as biology, chemistry, and physics advanced, the industry underwent a revolution.
Quantum physics and relativity revolutionized our view of the cosmos in the 20th century. It was
accompanied by rapid technological advancements, such as computers. Integration of fields like
artificial intelligence and nanotechnology in the twenty-first century. and a procedure that
includes experiments, hypotheses, observations, etc.

4. Discuss on the basic distinction between scientific realism and anti-realism.

In Realism the aim of science is to provide a true description of both the observable and
unobservable part of reality. This aim is attainable. In antirealism (or Instrumentalism). The aim
of science is to provide a true description of the observable part of the world only. For the
unobservable part, only agnosticism is possible. Unobservable theoretical constructs are for us
merely instruments for making observable predictions. Copernicus’s theory was originally
interpreted anti realistically by Osiander who wrote the Preface for Copernicus’s main work,
―The positive argument for realism is that it is the only philosophy that doesn’t make the success
of science a miracle‖ – H. Putnam. One anti-realist response: Counterexamples from the history
of science E.g. the phlogiston theory of combustion: Widely accepted until the end of the 18th
century Realist refined argument by appealing to ―approximate truth‖ rather than ―exact truth‖.

5. What does “Falsification” means by Karl Popper?

According to Karl Popper's idea of falsification, the goal of scientific research should be to
thoroughly test hypotheses and determine the circumstances in which they are incorrect, rather
than to confirm them. According to falsification, a theory must generate hypotheses that could
be refuted by empirical data or experimental findings in order to be considered valid.
Falsification, as opposed to verification, aims to clearly refute theoretical predictions as opposed
to confirming them. In brief, According to Karl Popper, our current understanding of science is
only temporary. Popper is renowned for his attempt to disprove the traditional positivist
explanation of the scientific method by substituting the falsification principle for induction. Karl
Popper developed the Falsification Principle as a means of distinguishing between science and
non-science. It implies that A theory needs to be testable and potentially falsifiable in order to
qualify as scientific. For instance, seeing a black swan can disprove the theory that "all swans are
white." Instead of always attempting to reinforce theoretical ideas, Popper believed that research
should try to invalidate a theory. (i.e., deductive reasoning) as the standard by which scientific
theory is distinguished from non-scientific theory.

Contrasting deductive and inductive reasoning moving from particular examples to further
generalizations, inductive reasoning entails making generalizations based on particular
observations or patterns. By generating certain predictions or expectations that may be examined
through investigation or additional observation, deductive reasoning in science tests or validates
these hypotheses. Since we don't always view the universe in all locations, all inductive evidence
has limitations. Therefore, we cannot draw a generalization from this observation of specifics.
Popper believed that if a scientific theory made predictions that could be tested and turned out to
be incorrect, the theory should be disproved. According to him, science would best critical
rationalism, which emphasizes deductive reasoning as its main focus. Popper provides the
following illustration:

Millions of white swans have been seen by Europeans for thousands of years. The idea that all
swans are white could be developed through the use of inductive evidence. However, Europeans
first encountered black swans during their exploration of Australasia. Poppers makes the point
that a hypothesis could always be refuted by a subsequent observation, regardless of how many
observations support it. There is no assurance in induction. The naive empiricist belief that we
observe the world objectively was also criticized by Karl Popper. Popper maintained that every
observation has a point of view and is, in fact, influenced by our comprehension. We see the
world. In light of our preexisting theories: it is "theory-laden." Popper put forth a falsification-
based alternative scientific methodology. However, a theory can be refuted by a single counter-
observation; there are numerous confirming examples. When a hypothesis is proven incorrect
and a new theory that more accurately describes the phenomenon is presented, science advances.
Popper believed that rather of continuously trying to prove a theory, a scientist should try to
invalidate it. Although we can never be sure that we have the complete answer, Popper does
believe that science can help us gradually get closer to the truth.

Popper's innovative response to the issue of the boundaries of science was his first significant
philosophical contribution. As per the traditional perspective, science, appropriately named,
stands out for its inductive approach, which is characterized by its use of experimentation and
observation rather than just logical analysis to support its conclusions. The main challenge was
that no positive run of observational data, no matter how long and continuous, is logically
enough to prove that an unconstrained generalization is true. In addition to strengthening the
conceptual underpinnings of contemporary peer review processes, Popper's clever formulations
of logical procedure served to limit the overuse of inductive speculation upon inductive
speculation.

However, there is scant evidence that science has ever adopted a methodical falsificationist
approach. In fact, numerous studies have demonstrated that scientists in the past and present have
a tendency to be reluctant to abandon beliefs that we would need to refer to as falsified in the
methodological sense, and frequently, as we have since seen, they were right to do so. Science's
history demonstrates that there are instances when it is wise to "stick to one's guns." For instance,
"Observations of the moon's orbit in the early years of its life disproved Newton's gravitational
theory." Furthermore, a theory is not refuted by a single observation. The experiment might have
been poorly planned, and the data might be inaccurate. According to Quine, a theory is a
complex network—a group of statements—rather than a single assertion. Even if you are wrong
about one of the network's claims (all swans are white, for example), you shouldn't discount the
complicated theory as a whole. The notion that there is a single approach that can be applied to
all science and explain its advancement was rejected by Karl Popper's detractors, primarily
Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend, and Imre Lakatos.