Philosophy of Science- Okasha, chapter 1 summary

       In chapter one of Philosophy of Science: A Very Brief Introduction by Samir Okasha, the foundation of what a science is, is built by explaining the origins of modern science. We are briskly walked through the Scientific Revolution in Europe between 1500-1750 which led to Aristotelianism, the accepted theory of the time that we lived in a geocentric or Earth centered universe. This is later contested by Copernicus who theorized a heliocentric or Sun centered universe in 1542 which would later be classified as the Copernican Revolution. Okasha continues through the historical timeline with introducing the reader to Johannes Kepler and his first law of planetary motion with the discovery of planets traveling in ellipses instead of the current accepted theory of circular orbits of the time. Galileo Galilei was the next influential giant who not only used experiments in his work but also is credited with the telescope and being the first to show the world that mathematics could explain movements of objects or as we know it now, physics. Rene Descartes developed mechanical philosophy, “according to which the physical world consists simply of inert particles of matter interaction and colliding with one another.” p.5. These laws governing motion, ‘of these particles or ‘corpuscles’ held the key to understanding the structure of the Copernican universe.’ p. 5.  In 1687 Isaac Newton publishes Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy and changes the history of science forever. His principles of universal gravitation, calculus and Newtonian physics provided the ‘framework’ for science for the next 200 years. 

In the 20th Century, Einstein came along and once again changed the course of history in the field of science. Einstein’s Relative Theory showed Newtonian Mechanics ‘does not give the right results when applied to very massive objects, or objects moving at very high velocities. Quantum mechanics, conversely, shows that the Newtonian theory does not work when applied on a very small scale, to subatomic particles.’ p.8.

The chapter finishes with a brief description what exactly is Philosophy of Science. The definition given is, ‘to analyze the methods of enquiry used in the various sciences.’ p.12. So why does this fall to philosophical minds? Okasha gives an excellent example, ‘Suppose a scientist does an experiment and gets a particular result. He repeats the experiment a few times and keeps getting the same result. After that he will probably stop, confident that were he to keep repeating the experiment, under exactly the same conditions, he would continue to get the same result. This assumption may seem obvious, but as philosophers we want to question it. WHY assume future repetitions of the experiment will yield the same result? How do we know this is true?’ p.12. The chapter ends with a brief discussion of what science is verses what is a pseudo-science, thus bringing us to the heart of what Philosophy of Science is.

To be honest I’ve never given much thought into what exactly makes a science a ‘science’. My first thought brought flash backs to middle school (I think) when I learned all about the scientific methods. Coming up with a hypothesis, testing it through experimentation and observation, making modifications if necessary, and retesting. I distinctly remember there being an emphasis placed on the need for replication. The experiment must be able to be repeated in order to see if the results would turn out the same or not. But more than that, I really had no further insight into what made something a science. Is there some common denominator? ‘Science’ is a blanket term covering many different disciplines and theories. So what, if anything, do they all haven common to classify them as a science? I honestly cannot answer this question but hope to get some more perspective on this as I read on.