Download Science at the bar

Science and society



How do scientific theories (or philosophical theories
about science) impact commonsense views, public
policy, etc.
Science at the Bar: determining what is science and
what is not.
Studies of non-human primates: how do they
challenge longstanding views that humans are unique
in the animal kingdom? And, if we are not so
different from other primates, what are ethical
responsibilities to them?
Science at the bar
Larry Laudan v. Michael Ruse
 Laudan:

McLean vs. Arkansas was a “hollow victory”
Ruse’s ruse
Science at the bar
Judge Overton
 Creation Science is not science because it
does not contain “the essential features of
science”

 It does not appeal to natural law
 Its claims are not testable or falsifiable
 Its proponents and claims are dogmatic rather than tentavie

Laudan’s alternative: CS is testable and many of its
claims are patently false.
Science at the bar

A far more serious problem is that the way science
was portrayed in the case is a false stereotype
 Many scientific claims also cannot be tested in isolation
and the logic of falsification is severely limited by that
 Many scientific claims are not viewed by scientists of the
day as open to negotiation; there is a degree of dogmatism
about core commitments among scientists.
 We don’t insist that in order for something to have
happened or to exist we must know what laws explain it
(for example, we know evolution occurred and continues
to but there are no laws in evolutionary theory).
Science at the bar

In what respects was the portrait of science “a
false stereotype”?
Not all sciences have laws in the sense presumed
here
It is not clear that there really is any definition or
set of criteria that succeed in defining science and
demarcating it from other endeavors
In short, the “pro-science” defenders are
defending a philosophy of science which is every
bit as outmoded as the “science” of creationism
Pro Judice
Ruse
 To say that science appeals to law is not
asserting that we know all the laws.
 Science does not break with law… it does
not appeal to miracles.
 The Constitution does not prohibit the
teaching of weak or bad science. It
prohibits the teaching of religion.

A third approach?





Rather than an argument by analogy, the argument
should be understood as invoking the following
kind of reasoning
Where ‘O’ is the object or phenomenon to be
explained and ‘H’ is a proposed hypothesis to
explain ‘O’, we can ask:
What is the likelihood of O if H? (Not what is the
probability of H given O?)
O: Noise in the attic
H: Gremlins are up there bowling
A third approach?



O: Noise in the attic
H: Gremlins are up there bowling
Although the probability of H is very low, if
anything at all,
P(H/x)

The likelihood of O if H is high
P (x/H)
A third approach?








O: The intricate and functional designs of organisms and
their parts
H1: They are the product of a designer
H2: They are the product of random, natural processes
P(O/H1) > P(O/H2)
But we are reminded again that there are no crucial tests
in science…
H3: They are the product of natural selection
Is P(O/H1) = P(O/H3)?
If so, we can ask what is P(H1/O)? And what is P(H2/O)?