FILOSOFIE VĚDY HLAVNÍ OTÁZKA HLAVNÍ OTÁZKA Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 2 / 102 HLAVNÍ OTÁZKA Co je věda? Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 3 / 102 HLAVNÍ OTÁZKA Jak vymezit vědu? Zajišťuje nám věda lepší zpsůoby poznání? Jaké je postup vědeckého poznání? ... Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 4 / 102 ÚVOD ÚVOD Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 5 / 102 ÚVOD The Needs for Demarcation cf. Pigliucci and Boudry (2013), ... practical policy ex.: funding of institutions, procedures,... education ex.: creationism / intelligent design & evolution theory health care ex.: stem cells justice (expert testimonies) ex.: pyramid razor sharpener ... theoretical material starting points epistemological warrant ... Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 6 / 102 ÚVOD preliminary questions preliminary questions Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 7 / 102 ÚVOD preliminary questions What do we want to demarcate? science branches of science good science bad science pseudo-science unscience parascience various types of systems of beliefs non-science ... Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 8 / 102 ÚVOD preliminary questions What do we want to achieve? description prescription Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 9 / 102 ÚVOD preliminary questions What should we take under consideration? theories systems of propositions people practices ... Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 10 / 102 ÚVOD preliminary questions Is demarcation universal? time/history domains/fields/branches universal Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 11 / 102 ÚVOD preliminary questions Is demarcation fixed? once a science/non-science, always a sciences/non-science a science/non-science can turn out to be a non-science/science a science can turn out to be a non-science a non-science can turn out to be a science Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 12 / 102 ÚVOD preliminary questions How can this be done? examination of theories empirical examination ... Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 13 / 102 KARL RAIMUND POPPER KARL RAIMUND POPPER Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 14 / 102 KARL RAIMUND POPPER introduction introduction Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 15 / 102 KARL RAIMUND POPPER introduction domains of interest Popper (2014: 34) Marx’s theory of history Freud’s psychoanalysis Adler’s individual psychology Einstein’s theory of relativity “It began to dawn on me that this apparent strength was in fact their weakness.” Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 16 / 102 KARL RAIMUND POPPER problems of induction problems of induction Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 17 / 102 KARL RAIMUND POPPER problems of induction two problems of induction Popper (2005) psychological Why do We Believe ... logical logical form justification of induction Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 18 / 102 KARL RAIMUND POPPER forms of theories forms of theories Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 19 / 102 KARL RAIMUND POPPER forms of theories forms of statements Popper (2005) singular statements individual concept universal statements numerically universal statements strictly universal statements Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 20 / 102 KARL RAIMUND POPPER forms of theories forms of statements Popper (2005) exitential statements non-existence statements Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 21 / 102 KARL RAIMUND POPPER forms of theories forms of theories Popper (2005) rigorous axiomatized system consistency epistemological usefulness prohibiton possibility of falsification Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 22 / 102 KARL RAIMUND POPPER forms of theories Fries’s Trilemma Popper (2005) psychologism infinite regress dogmatism version of dogmatism no firm base observability Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 23 / 102 KARL RAIMUND POPPER falsifiability falsifiability Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 24 / 102 KARL RAIMUND POPPER falsifiability components theory initial conditions basic statements Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 25 / 102 KARL RAIMUND POPPER problems & critique problems & critique Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 26 / 102 KARL RAIMUND POPPER problems & critique problems & critique immunizations determination of theories missing empirical base not corresponding to scientiffic practise Thick Skin Problem Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 27 / 102 KARL RAIMUND POPPER problems & critique Thick Skin of Scientists Lakatos (1978: 5–4) “Scientists have thick skins. They do not abandon a theory merely because facts contradict it. They normally either invent some rescue hypothesis to explain what they then call a mere anomaly or, if they cannot explain the anomaly, they ignore it, and direct their attention to other problems. Note that scientists talk about anomalies, recalcitrant instances, not refutations.” Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 28 / 102 THOMAS SAMUEL KUHN THOMAS SAMUEL KUHN Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 29 / 102 THOMAS SAMUEL KUHN revolutions 1st edition revolutions 1st edition Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 30 / 102 THOMAS SAMUEL KUHN revolutions 1st edition The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1st edition) Kuhn (1962) pre-paradigm period period of normal science cumulative proces dogmas period of non-normal science period of extraordinary science period of scientific revolution Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 31 / 102 THOMAS SAMUEL KUHN critique of a paradigm critique of a paradigm Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 32 / 102 THOMAS SAMUEL KUHN critique of a paradigm The Nature of a paradigm Masterman (1970) metaparadigms sociological paradigms artefact/construct paradigms Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 33 / 102 THOMAS SAMUEL KUHN critique of a paradigm The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Shapere (1964) “paradigms cannot, in general, be formulated adequately” “cannot be described adequately in words“ Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 34 / 102 THOMAS SAMUEL KUHN revolutions 2nd edition revolutions 2nd edition Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 35 / 102 THOMAS SAMUEL KUHN revolutions 2nd edition The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (other editions) Kuhn (2012) symbolic generalizations models values exemplars ... Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 36 / 102 THOMAS SAMUEL KUHN critique of a disciplinary matrix critique of a disciplinary matrix Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 37 / 102 THOMAS SAMUEL KUHN critique of a disciplinary matrix Critique of the Paradigm Concept Shapere (1971) We are unusre what is content of disciplinary matrix. Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 38 / 102 IMRE LAKATOS IMRE LAKATOS Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 39 / 102 IMRE LAKATOS types of falsification types of falsification Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 40 / 102 IMRE LAKATOS types of falsification Naïve dogmatic firm empirical base metodological conventional empirical base passivists vs. activist Sophisticated rules of falsification or elimination rules of acceptance Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 41 / 102 IMRE LAKATOS research programmes research programmes Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 42 / 102 IMRE LAKATOS research programmes Structure of Research Programmes Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 43 / 102 IMRE LAKATOS research programmes Sophisticated Falsification Lakatos (1978: 116) „For the sophisticated falsificationist a scientific theory T is falsified if and only if another theory T’ has been proposed with the following characteristics: (I) T’ has excess empirical content over T: that is, it predicts novel facts, that is, facts improbable in the light of, or even forbidden, by T;3 (2) T’ explains the previous success of T, that is, all the unrefuted content of T is included (within the limits of observational error) in the content of T’; and (3) some of the excess content of T’ is corroborated.“ Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 44 / 102 THE DEMISE THE DEMISE Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 45 / 102 THE DEMISE The Demise of the Demarcation Problem Laudan (1983) “[...] we ought to drop terms like ’pseudo-science’ and ’unscientific’ from our vocabulary; they are just hollow phrases which do only emotive work for us.” “[...] The ’scientific’ status of those claims is altogether irrelevant.” Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 46 / 102 GOOD SCIENCE GOOD SCIENCE Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 47 / 102 GOOD SCIENCE Merton Merton Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 48 / 102 GOOD SCIENCE Merton Institutional Imperatives Merton (1973) Universalism “Communism” Disinterestedness Organized skepticism Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 49 / 102 EPISTEMIC FIELDS EPISTEMIC FIELDS Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 50 / 102 EPISTEMIC FIELDS Bunge & Mahner Bunge & Mahner Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 51 / 102 EPISTEMIC FIELDS Bunge & Mahner Structure of Epistemic Fields Mahner (2007: 549) Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 52 / 102 EPISTEMIC FIELDS Bunge & Mahner Structure of Epistemic Fields Mahner (2007) 1. Community C: the group or community C of knowers or knowledge seekers 2. Society S: the society S hosting the activities of C 3. Domain D: the domain or universe of discourse D of the members of C, i.e., the collection of factual or fictional objects the members of C refer to in their discourse 4. Philosophical background or general outlook G: (a) Ontological assumptions (b) Epistemological assumptions (c) Methodological principles (d) Semantic assumptions (e) Axiological and moral assumptions Logical values Semantical values Methodological values Attitudinal- and moral values 5. The formal background F: a collection of logical or mathematical assumptions or theories taken for granted in the process of inquiry Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 53 / 102 EPISTEMIC FIELDS Bunge & Mahner Structure of Epistemic Fields Mahner (2007) 6. The specific background knowledge B: a collection of knowledge items (statements, procedures, methods, etc.) borrowed from other epistemic fields 7. The problematics P: the collection of problems concerning the nature, value or use of the members of D, as well as problems concerning other components listed here, such as G or F 8. The fund of knowledge K: the collection of knowledge items (propositions, theories, procedures, etc.) obtained by the previous and current members of C in the course of their cognitive activities 9. The aims A: the cognitive, practical or moral goals of the members of C in the pursuit of their specific activities 10. The methodics M: the collection of general and specific methods (or techniques) used by the members of C in their inquiry of the members of D Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 54 / 102 EPISTEMIC FIELDS Bunge & Mahner Structure of Epistemic Fields Mahner (2007) 11. The systemicity condition: There is at least one other field of research S’ such that S and S’ share some items in G, F, B, K, A and M; and either the domain D of one of the two fields S and S’ is included in that of the other, or each member of the domain of one of the fields is a component of a system in the domain of the other. 12. The changeability or progressiveness condition: The membership of the conditions 5–10 changes, however slowly and meanderingly at times, as a result of research in the same field or as a result of research in neighboring disciplines. Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 55 / 102 BAD AND PSEUDO-SCIENCE BAD AND PSEUDO-SCIENCE Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 56 / 102 BAD AND PSEUDO-SCIENCE Derksen Derksen Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 57 / 102 BAD AND PSEUDO-SCIENCE Derksen Pseudo-Scientists Derksen (1993, 2001) “profile of the pseudo-sciences can be gained from the scientific pretensions of the pseudo-scientist” a epistemic-social-psychological profile Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 58 / 102 BAD AND PSEUDO-SCIENCE Derksen The Seven Sins Derksen (1993, 2001) Dearth of Decent Evidence pretence to producing reliable knowledge, obtained via trustworthy methods Unfounded Immunizations accepting only particular interpretations of the data Ur-Tenptations uncritically assigning a deeper significance to prima facie spectacular coincidences Magic Methods Insights of Innatates Only the initiate has the right perspective on the truth. All-Explaining Theories Uncritical and Excessive Pretensions Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 59 / 102 BAD AND PSEUDO-SCIENCE immunizations immunizations Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 60 / 102 BAD AND PSEUDO-SCIENCE immunizations Immunizing Strategies and Epistemic Defense Mechanisms Boudry and Braeckman (2011: 146) “We define an ‘immunizing strategy’ as an argument brought forward in support of a belief system, though independent from that belief system, which makes it more or less invulnerable to rational argumentation and/or empirical evidence. By contrast, an epistemic ‘defense mechanism’ is defined as an internal structural feature of a belief system, which has the same effect of deflecting rational arguments and empirical refutations.” Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 61 / 102 BAD AND PSEUDO-SCIENCE immunizations Immunizing Strategies and Epistemic Defense Mechanisms Boudry and Braeckman (2011: 146) Conceptual Equivocations & Moving Targets Multiple Endpoints Deflationary Revisions Postdiction and Feedback Loops Conspiracy Thinking Turning the Evidence on its Head Explaining the Motives for Disbelief Changing the Rules of Play Invisible Escape Clauses Tailoring Around the Phenomena Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 62 / 102 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 63 / 102 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? Fanelli (2009) Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 64 / 102 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? Fanelli (2009) scientists Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 64 / 102 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? Fanelli (2009) scientists fabrication, falsification or modification of data or results Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 64 / 102 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? Fanelli (2009) scientists fabrication, falsification or modification of data or results admitted Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 64 / 102 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? Fanelli (2009) scientists fabrication, falsification or modification of data or results admitted 1.97% Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 64 / 102 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? Fanelli (2009) scientists fabrication, falsification or modification of data or results other questionable research practices admitted 1.97% Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 64 / 102 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? Fanelli (2009) scientists fabrication, falsification or modification of data or results other questionable research practices admitted 1.97% 33.7% Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 64 / 102 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? Fanelli (2009) scientists fabrication, falsification or modification of data or results other questionable research practices admitted 1.97% 33.7% know of Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 64 / 102 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? Fanelli (2009) scientists fabrication, falsification or modification of data or results other questionable research practices admitted 1.97% 33.7% know of 14.12% Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 64 / 102 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? Fanelli (2009) scientists fabrication, falsification or modification of data or results other questionable research practices admitted 1.97% 33.7% know of 14.12% 72% Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 64 / 102 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS The trouble with retractions Van Noorden (2011: 27) Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 65 / 102 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS sorts & types sorts & types Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 66 / 102 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS sorts & types Misbehaviours of Various Kinds Fanelli (2011: 85) Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 67 / 102 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS sorts & types Sorts and Types of Misconducts National Science Foundation (2002) Ethical Misconducts Violations of ethical code. Research Misconducts “Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing or performing research [...], reviewing research proposals [...], or in reporting research results [...]” Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 68 / 102 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS sorts & types National Science Foundation (2002) Plagiarism “means the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results or words without giving appropriate credit”. Fabrication “means making up data or results and recording or reporting them”. Falsification “means manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record”. Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 69 / 102 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS practical characterization practical characterization Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 70 / 102 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS practical characterization National Science Foundation (2002) A finding of research misconduct requires that— 1. There be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; and 2. The research misconduct be committed intentionally, or knowingly, or recklessly; and 3. The allegation be proven by a preponderance of evidence. (b) Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion. Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 71 / 102 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS practical characterization Main Characteristics a methodology or a code an intentionality a knowingness a recklessness a preponderance of evidence Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 72 / 102 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS problems problems Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 73 / 102 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS problems Problems of Distinction: Questions What is the relation between ethical misconducts and scientific misconducts? Is any ethical misconduct a scientific misconduct? Is any scientific misconduct an ethical misconduct? How to distinguish sceintific misconducts and honest errors? Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 74 / 102 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS problems Problem of Violatting a Methodology or a Code of Conducting The Tuskegee Syphilis Study The Monster Study Unit 731 introspection Dr. Roger Poisson Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 75 / 102 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS problems Problem of Intention Schön scandal Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 76 / 102 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS problems Problem of Knowledge of Consequences Little Albert experiment Milgram Experiment Stanford Prison Experiment Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 77 / 102 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS problems The Myth of Self-Correction in Science Stroebe, Postmes, and Spears (2012) Fraud Detectors Reducing the Risks peer reviews rewards replications cost whistleblowing chance of discovery Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 78 / 102 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS conclusion conclusion Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 79 / 102 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS conclusion Problems of Distinction: Answers What is the relation between ethical misconducts and scientific misconducts? Is any ethical misconduct a scientific misconduct? Is any scientific misconduct an ethical misconduct? Any scientific misconduct can be seen as an ethical misconduct but not vice versa. Be aware of The Moralistic Fallacy (Davis, 1978). How to distinguish sceintific misconducts and honest errors? The only difference between scientific misconduct and honest errors is an intention. Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 80 / 102 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS conclusion New Definitions of Scientific Misconduct Fanelli (2013) scientific misconduct as distorted reporting “any omission or misrepresentation of the information necessary and sufficient to evaluate the validity and significance of research, at the level appropriate to the context in which the research is communicated”. no difference between honest errors and scientific misconducts Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 81 / 102 SCIENCTIFIC PUBLISHING SCIENCTIFIC PUBLISHING Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 82 / 102 SCIENCTIFIC PUBLISHING problems problems Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 83 / 102 SCIENCTIFIC PUBLISHING problems Some Problems decreasing credibility too much science predators predatory publishers predatory conference Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 84 / 102 SCIENCTIFIC PUBLISHING decreasing credibility decreasing credibility Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 85 / 102 SCIENCTIFIC PUBLISHING decreasing credibility Pop-science increasing number of pseudo-scientific claims, papers, shows... Dr. Oz misreporting of scientific results, researches... Could sniffing flatulence be GOOD for you? Potent gas can help prevent cancer, strokes and heart attacks, claim scientists (Mail Online 2014-07-11) Study: Smelling farts may be good for your health (The Week 2014-07-11) Silent, not deadly; how farts cure diseases (The Guardian 2014-07-11) Farts can fight strokes, heart attacks and dementia, scientists claim (The Mirror 2015-11-08) Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 86 / 102 SCIENCTIFIC PUBLISHING decreasing credibility Biased Researches funding sustainability ... Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 87 / 102 SCIENCTIFIC PUBLISHING decreasing credibility Poor Orientation & Biased Knowledge Rosling (2016): The Ignorance Project Project Implicit (2016): Project Implicit Moralistic Fallacy Gould (1996): The mismeasure of man Rushton and Jensen (2005): Wanted: More race realism, less moralistic fallacy ... Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 88 / 102 SCIENCTIFIC PUBLISHING predators predators Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 89 / 102 SCIENCTIFIC PUBLISHING predators Beall’s list List of potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers. Criteria (Beall, 2015): Editor and Staff Business management Integrity Other Poor journal standards / practice Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 90 / 102 SCIENCTIFIC PUBLISHING predators Beall (2016) Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 91 / 102 SCIENCTIFIC PUBLISHING predators Testing absurd, meaningless texts Sokal (1996): Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity “The content and methodology of postmodern science thus provide powerful intellectual support for the progressive political project, understood in its broadest sense: the transgressing of boundaries, the breaking down of barriers, the radical democratization of all aspects of social, economic, political and cultural life. Conversely, one part of this project must involve the construction of a new and truly progressive science that can serve the needs of such a democratized society-to-be.” (Sokal, 1996: 11) automaticly generated texts PDOS research group (2016): An Automatic CS Paper Generator Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 92 / 102 SCIENCTIFIC PUBLISHING predators Pseudo-scientists (cf. Derksen (1993, 2001)) “profile of the pseudo-sciences can be gained from the scientific pretensions of the pseudo-scientist” Derksen (1993) a epistemic-social-psychological profile.5 Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 93 / 102 SCIENCTIFIC PUBLISHING predators Pseudo-scientists (cf. Derksen (1993, 2001)) Dearth of Decent Evidence Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 94 / 102 SHRNUTÍ A ZÁVĚR SHRNUTÍ A ZÁVĚR Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 95 / 102 SHRNUTÍ A ZÁVĚR Co si odnést? Teorie potřebuje praxi. Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 96 / 102 SHRNUTÍ A ZÁVĚR důležité pojmy a koncepty I POJMY A KONCEPTY dělení vědy problém indukce povaha tvrzení existenciální, non-existenciální singulární, universální empirická báze Friesovo trilema verifikace falsifikace naivní, metodologická asymetrie verifikace a falsifikace ad-hoc hypotézy Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 97 / 102 SHRNUTÍ A ZÁVĚR důležité pojmy a koncepty II paradigma / disciplinární matice vědecká období předparadigmatické období období normální vědy období ne-normální vědy výzkumný program degenerativní a progresivní tvrdé jádro, ochranný pás, heuristiky demarkace vědy falsifikovatelnost řešení hádanek výzkumné programy Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 98 / 102 SHRNUTÍ A ZÁVĚR důležité pojmy a koncepty III PROBLÉMY Jak lze rozlišit vědu a ne-vědu? Proč potřebujeme vědu? K čemu vede asymetrie mezi verifikací a falsifikací? Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 99 / 102 SHRNUTÍ A ZÁVĚR Frauds in Philosophy? fauxphilnews (2012) “Saul Kripke resigned yesterday from his position [...] a team of philosophers from Oxford University [...] were systematically unable to reproduce the results of thought experiments reported by Kripke in his groundbreaking Naming and Necessity. The team, led by Timothy Williamson, first became suspicious of Naming and Necessity after preliminary results raised questions about related work by Hilary Putnam. While the group was initially unable to confirm that water is H2O on Twin Earth, the results turned out to be due to contaminated research materials—one of the researchers’ minds had been contaminated by Chomskyan internalist semantics.” Ondráček ·FILOSOFIE VĚDY · 100 / 102 ZDROJE I Beall, J. (2015). Criteria for determining predatory open-access publishers. Scholarly Open Access. Retrieved from https://scholarlyoa.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/ criteria-2015.pdf,(accessed2015-02-14 Beall, J. (2016). Beall’s list: Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers. Scholarly Open Access. Retrieved from https://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/ Boudry, M., & Braeckman, J. (2011). Immunizing strategies and epistemic defense mechanisms. Philosophia, 39(1), 145–161. Davis, B. D. (1978). The moralistic fallacy. Nature, 272, 390. Derksen, A. A. (1993). The seven sins of pseudo-science. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 24(1), 17–42. Derksen, A. A. (2001). The seven strategies of the sophisticated pseudo-scientist: a look into freud’s rhetorical tool box. Journal for general philosophy of science, 32(2), 329–350. Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? a systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PloS one, 4(5), 5738. Fanelli, D. (2011). The black, the white and the grey areas: Towards an international and interdisciplinary definition of scientific misconduct. In T. Mayer & N. Steneck (Eds.), Promoting research integrity in a global environment (pp. 79–90). World Scientific Publishing Company. Fanelli, D. (2013). Redefine misconduct as distorted reporting. Nature, 494(7436), 149–149. fauxphilnews. (2012). Kripke resigns as report alleges he faked results of thought experiments. Retrieved from https://fauxphilnews.wordpress.com/2012/02/22/ kripke-resigns-after-allegations-of-academic-fraud/ Gould, S. J. (1996). The Mismeasure of Man. WW Norton & Company. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions (1st ed.). University of Chicago Press. Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions (4th ed.). University of Chicago Press. Lakatos, I. (1978). The methodology of scientific research programmes (Vol. 1; J. Worrall & G. Currie, Eds.). Cambridge university press. Laudan, L. (1983). The demise of the demarcation problem. In R. S. Cohen & R. Laudan (Eds.), Physics, philosophy and psychoanalysis (p. 111–127). Springer. Mahner, M. (2007). Demarcating science from non-science. In T. Kuipers (Ed.), Handbook of the philosophy of science (pp. 515–575). Elsevier. ZDROJE II Masterman, M. (1970). The nature of a paradigm. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London, 1965. Cambridge University Press. Merton, R. K. (1973). The Normative Structure of Science. In N. W. Storer (Ed.), The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (pp. 267–278). University of Chicago press. National Science Foundation. (2002). Misconduct in Science and Engineering: Final Rule, 45 CFR Part 689 (10-1-2 ed.). Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/oig/_pdf/cfr/45-CFR-689.pdf (NSF = National Science Foundation) PDOS research group. (2016). Scigen - an automatic cs paper generator. Retrieved from https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/archive/scigen/#people Pigliucci, M., & Boudry, M. (2013). The dangers of pseudoscience. New York Times, 10. Popper, K. (2005). The logic of scientific discovery. Routledge. Popper, K. (2014). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. Routledge. Project Implicit. (2016). Project implicit. Retrieved from https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/ Rosling, H. (2016). The ignorance project. GapMinder Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.gapminder.org/ignorance/ Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R. (2005). Wanted: More race realism, less moralistic fallacy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11(2), 328–336. Shapere, D. (1964). The structure of scientific revolutions. The Philosophical Review, 73(3), 383–394. Shapere, D. (1971). The paradigm concept. Science, 172(3), 706–709. Sokal, A. D. (1996). Transgressing the boundaries: Toward a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity. Social text(46/47), 217–252. Stroebe, W., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2012). Scientific Misconduct and the Myth of Self-Correction in Science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 670–688. Van Noorden, R. (2011). The trouble with retractions. Nature, 478(7367), 26–28.