What makes science special? Why did it take more than 50 000 years to arrive after modern humans started to exist? Why is it so successful?
Michael Strevens tries to explain both aspects by appeal to the idea that science is in a very specific way, strategically irrational.
The subjectivity of scientists
Learn first about the background of Strevens project. We return to last week's discussion of science and pseudoscience and look forward a little bit to next week's discussion about whether scientists must make value judgments. According to Strevens, individual scientists must make subjective judgments. And they always do. Strevens thinks that this is how it must be. Learn more about that aspect of his work here:
The iron rule of explanation
The fact that scientist's judgments are always to some degree subjective is NOT what Strevens thinks makes science irrational. Rather, what is irrational about science is a rule that all scientists follow, which tells them to exclude many things from their publications that seem clearly relevant. This rule is what makes science successful and explains why science took so long to arrive. Learn more about it here:
Questions for reflection
- do you agree with Strevens that scientists follow the iron rule?
- do you think he is right that insofar as they do this is a good thing?
- given Streven's argumentation, is this course a waste of your time (and the University's money?