Science and society

1
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?

2
Science at the bar

• Larry Laudan v. Michael Ruse
• Laudan
• McLean vs. Arkansas was a hollow victory
• Ruses ruse

3
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
• Laudans alternative CS is testable and many of
  its claims are patently false.

4
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 dont 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).

5
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

6
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.

7
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

8
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)

9
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) gt 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)?