1. Understanding Science and its limitations;
why should we care?
Defining and demarcating Science
Why should we be concerned with the philosophy of Science?
What differentiates good and bad hypothesis?
From question to hypothesis
Popper/Kuhn/Lakatos/Feirabend contributions to the demarcation of Science
Some practical and ethical considerations
Pete Jumars has an excellent web page at the University of Maine from where I took some ideas

2. The power of a deductive approach According to Monty Python
BEDEVERE:
Tell me. What do you do with witches?
VILLAGER #2:
Burn!
And what do you burn apart from witches?
Wood!
So, why do witches burn?
[pause]
VILLAGER #3:
B--... 'cause they're made of... wood?
Does wood sink in water?
VILLAGER #1:
No. No.
What also floats in water?
ARTHUR:
A duck!
CROWD:
Oooh.
Exactly. So, logically...
If... she... weighs... the same as a duck,...
she's made of wood.
And therefore?
A witch!
The power of a
deductive approach
According to
Monty Python

15. Another example:
-Why is ecology considered a science while astrology is a pseudoscience ?

16. Are there a set of activities and characteristics common to all sciences?
Karl Popper suggested that all scientific theories should be falsifiable.  Theories are able to make predictions that can be tested against experience.
What is a good hypothesis?
1) Excess empirical content  predict phenomena that have not been observed before.
2) Verified excess empirical content. Many times we are faced with a set of predictions, only some of which are falsified.
3) Connectedness to other knowledge. Hypothesis that fail this criterion are commonly called empirical, semi-empirical, formal, arbitrary, or simply “ad hoc”.
Hypothesis means an smaller idea imbedded within a larger one.
 confusion between a good statistical null hypothesis and a good ecological hypothesis.

17. Karl Popper efforts were aimed at differentiate science from pseudo science:
Theory of Relativity vs. psychoanalysis and and Marx’s theory oh history
However, his statements went further:
We cannot rely on induction to acquire knowledge; falsification allows us to rely solely on deductive processes.
Deductive inference:
- All Chileans like red wine (axiom or premise 1)
Alejandro is Chilean (axiom or premise 2)
Alejandro likes red wine (conclusion)
However, more often we are faced with inductive inferences:
The first five eggs in the box are rotten
All eggs in the box have the same stamped date
The sixth egg in the box will be rotten
When we talk about “experimental proof” we really mean “supporting evidence”

18. Karl Popper’ argument was this:
Although we cannot prove that a scientific theory is true, it is possible to prove that it is false.
 When we refute an hypothesis we are using deductive inference.
What is the weakness in Popper’s argument?
It does not tell us how theories are formed
Scientists are not interested in finding out how our universe doesn’t work.
Hume’s paradox
We can acquire new knowledge only through inductive processes. However, induction cannot be rationally justified. We need to invoke the “Uniformity of Nature”.
Max Plank: We are like archeologists trying to decipher hieroglyphs .
Feynman: We are trying to decipher the rules of chess not having seen the beginning of the game.

19. Kuhn’s contribution: “The nature of scientific revolutions”
Other important contribution to the Philosophy os Science during the 20th Century:
Thomas Kuhn: “The structure of Scientific Revolutions”
Differentiates between “normal” and “revolutionary” science
Irme Lakatos: The concept of Scientific Programme
We work with systems of hypotheses
We cannot discard a theory or paradigm before we are able to replace it.
Paul Feirabend (the Anarquist):
Against Method
How to protect Society from Science
Problem solving is a creative enterprise!! Furthermore, in its advance form, problem solving requires the creation of new problems.

20. Kuhn’s contribution: “The nature of scientific revolutions”
Platt, J Strong Inference. Science, 146
Within science, why are there some field that are rapidly moving while others are slow?
Application of the following steps to address a scientific question:
Devising alternative hypotheses;
Devising a critical experiment (or several of them), with alternative possible outcomes. Each of which will, as nearly as possible, exclude one or more of the hypotheses;
Carry out the experiment so as to get a clean result;
Recycling the procedure, making subhypotheses aor sequencial hypotheses to refine the posibilities that remain, and so on.
Is there one Scientific Method?

21. Some practical considerations:
The importance of constructive criticism in peer review
“The most effective criticism of a poor hypothesis constitutes the construction of a better one”.
From P. Jumars
What should we do:
When you have a good idea set it up as a set of hypotheses:
Draw a diagram
Write an explicit equation
Examine possible special cases
Simplify the problem and place it in a general context
Only constructive criticism works ultimately
Work toward a better hypothesis
Decide (or identify) what theory you are using and not trying to endanger. Work with hypotheses that are derived from this theory.
Remember that in order to have a good hypothesis (little prediction from a bigger idea) you first need a thesis (an overarching idea)
In our present funding climate, it is difficult to get exciting ideas and risky approaches funded. Most part of the time proposal with fairly secure outcomes will be funded leave enough room to do do some of the science that you want to do.
Use Occam’s razor, but not as a blinder

22. Some practical considerations:
What we should not do:
Develop multiple working hypotheses that cannot be falsified by data
Beware of single hypotheses that have a person’s name attached, specially if it is your own.
Maintain healthy skepticism of the data an hypotheses
Remember that any acceptance of an hypothesis is only tentative until a better one comes to replace it.
Avoid collecting data and then making a story about them (an ad hoc theory or hypothesis). Collection of data without a theory.
Work toward or from predictions. You should collect the data only after making the predictions.
Don’t confuse empirical predictions based on observed statistical regularities with predictions based on mechanistic understanding. The formers allow the development of hypotheses but cannot test them.

23. Some practical considerations:
Once you have done your research:
If the results haven’t been published, the research will need to be re-done.
Your recipe needs to be clear because your results need to be reproducible.
Be precise in your writings
Avoid jargon and abbreviations in the abstract and title.
Be clear in explaining the purpose, methods, results and conclusions.
Chose your target audience, then the journal, and write the paper accordingly.
If the paper has weak points, highlight them rather than hide them.
Who should be co-author vs. who should be acknowledge?
In writing proposals consider:
What are the current and exciting issues in our field?
Why should the topic you chose be included among them now?
Why should the work be done now?
Why should a particular agency fund it?
Why are you well poised to do the job?
How will you interact with other research groups?
Get the big idea out clearly, early and often.
Show that you can frame a set of testable hypotheses
Help the reviewer to do a reality check
Show respect… follow the Agency guidelines.
Take the reviews seriously and don’t take rejections too hard
Ask the program manager what are the key points to address in a revision and persevere.

24. Writing reviews:
Be constructive… Concentrate on improvements
Do a triage first: don’t spend time on details if there are major flaws
Pay close attention to reproducibility of results (clarity and completeness of methods)
How do the result support the discussion?
If the writing is poor, suggest an informal review by the editor before you do a formal review.
On the review of proposals:
Is it feasible?
Will the proposed work have an impact in our field and beyond it?
Is it timely?
Are we inclined to fund the proposal because of the data or the scientific value of the hypotheses?
If you cannot suggest improvements, how much should you criticize?

25. A few ethical considerations:
To your peers:
First of all acknowledge your sources and collaborators
Be honest, this is the basis of scientific endeavor. You are ultimately responsible for your work and your colleagues will build on the knowledge that you provide. As Karl Popper said: Science is a community effort.
Make certain that you are unbiased as a reviewer. It is OK to decline reviewing a manuscript or proposal.
To society:
Our research is mostly funded by tax dollars. Hence we should try to make our results as accessible as possible. (Against big words)
We need to educate the public in the meaning and value of science. Does religion conflicts with Science?
Should we avoid dealing with controversial issues?
Reluctance versus overstatement.
- Resistance and reticence of scientists to state new discoveries (R. Barber, 1965)
- On the other hand, some of us tend to overstate the importance of our results in supporting a knowledge status quo.