Understanding Science

We often put our trust in science, but many of us (including scientists!) do not have a firm understanding of what science is or why it works—when it does. In this course we will examine foundational questions about science. What is it? Is scientific progress fundamentally rational? Are scientific theories true, or just useful? How do scientists choose what gets published, and do they choose well? Is science objective? Should it be? And how can science go terribly wrong—by supporting bigotry, or lending authority to nonsense? This course is open to students of all majors.

 
 

Course materials

Introductory stuff for the first weeks:

Course texts:

This course uses a textbook. We will be reading most of the book, so please get a copy:

Barker, Gillian and Philip Kitcher. (2014). Philosophy of Science: A New Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (TCU Bookstore; Amazon; or order through your favorite independent bookstore!)

Other readings will be available on TCU Online for free.

Links

Science and journalism

Weird life

Scientific ethics

Scientific racism and history

Scientific sexism

  • If you want to know more about the science of human reproduction vs. common narratives (relevant to Martin 1991), I recommend the end of the Radiolab story “Why So Many Sperm?” The last segment begins around 16:30 into the episode, with the sound of geese squawking (or see my transcript of the whole episode; be aware that the rest of the episode involves a frank description of animal sex practices, some of which are rather unsavory, and disappointing trans- and nonbinary-exclusive framing).

  • For more on the current science of human reproduction, check out “The macho sperm myth” in Aeon, by Robert D. Martin (no relation, so far as I know, to Emily Martin).

Relativism

Hermeneutical injustice

Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement (modified)
objection to the main point: identifies a critical flaw in the argument.
objection: identifies a flaw in the argument.
mere counterargument: argues against conclusion but does not address reasons.
contradiction: contradicts the conclusion but does not provide an argument.
responding to tone: criticizes the way the author expresses herself but not her reasoning.
ad hominem: criticizes the author without addressing her conclusion or her argument.
name-calling: sounds something like “Socrates is a jerk and nobody likes his face.”

Based on this image, which is based on this article.