PHIL 151.001 – Theory, Evidence, and Understanding in Science

IDEAs in Action: Which curricular requirements does this course satisfy?

Instructor: Katie Deaven. This course meets TR 2:00 – 3:15 p.m. in MU 302.

We tend to think the natural sciences serve as a model for other disciplines. Unlike the humanities, they are objective and don’t seek to answer—nor are they in the business of asking—questions about values, social-political, or religious matters. That isn’t to say that we don’t often see science used in such debates; in fact, we might interpret the frequency of appeals to science in these areas as a means of getting a grip on slippery questions outside science’s domain. Unlike mathematics, the phenomena of interest in these sciences are actual things in the world that we can observe and interact with (even if only indirectly), providing us with a means of acquiring quite a lot of knowledge. Moreover, unlike disciplines like economics or political science, the practitioners in the natural sciences should be fair and impartial judges of the assumptions they employ and the hypotheses they test, subjecting each to intense scrutiny and rejecting those that are false.

In this course, we’ll examine this view of the natural sciences more closely; our goal is to understand what makes science tick. Students will become well-equipped not merely to read about new scientific findings but also (and perhaps more importantly) to reflect on the attitudes we should have toward science as a whole. We will begin by asking: What makes science science? We can quickly point to examples, but what sets Newton’s laws of motion apart from astrology? We will then consider two contemporary controversies this question is enmeshed in. First, we’ll explore the conflict between the teaching of creationism/intelligent design as a rival theory to the theory of evolution. Second, we’ll reflect on conspiracy theorizing and whether people’s beliefs in some conspiracies can really be attributed to poor methodology and reasoning or the believer’s intellectual vices. Next, we’ll consider the nature of theory change and scientific progress. Through this unit, we will consider what the slogan we see in many people’s yards today, “We believe in science,” might mean and whether it aligns with the aims and outputs of science. Finally, we’ll critically examine the belief that science is truly objective and value-free and the relationship between science and the public. We’ll then apply what we learn to the anti-vaxxing movement and consider issues relating to public trust and whether scientists have moral obligations to be champions of science or to ensure their work is not misused.