philo of science and social science

8/14/2019 Philo of Science and Social Science

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/philo-of-science-and-social-science 1/36

What is philosophy?What is philosophy?

Useless skillsUseless skills

A four syllabus word:A four syllabus word: qiang ci duo liqiang ci duo li 强词强词

夺理夺理

How to argueHow to argue Love of wisdomLove of wisdom

Foundation of all knowledgesFoundation of all knowledges



Early philosophers looked for answersEarly philosophers looked for answersto problems of human existence, e.g.to problems of human existence, e.g.beauty, morality, truth, etc…thebeauty, morality, truth, etc…theresult was more questions.result was more questions.

Modern demarcation of philosophicalModern demarcation of philosophicalsubdisciplines:subdisciplines:

MetaphysicsMetaphysics

EpistemologyEpistemology EthicsEthics AestheticsAesthetics



What is the purpose of studying philosophy?What is the purpose of studying philosophy?

To seek truth To seek truth To find answers To find answers To understand the world around us To understand the world around us To train our thinking skills To train our thinking skills

Or simply because it is fun, because I am curiousOr simply because it is fun, because I am curious

But the consequence would be something else:But the consequence would be something else:testing the limits of human reason, which couldtesting the limits of human reason, which couldlead to various phenomena: anger, spite,lead to various phenomena: anger, spite,bitterness, peace, calmness, and humorbitterness, peace, calmness, and humor

Philosophy either makes or breaks: you cannotPhilosophy either makes or breaks: you cannot

unknow what you knowunknow what you know



Why science and socialWhy science and social

science?science? Philosophy teaches us to question the self-Philosophy teaches us to question the self-

evident assumptions we hold, without whichevident assumptions we hold, without whichwe would simply ________ (fill in the blanks)we would simply ________ (fill in the blanks)

Questioning assumptions can be a scary andQuestioning assumptions can be a scary andpainful processpainful process Therefore it is pedagogical to start with Therefore it is pedagogical to start with

something that we believe in, but withoutsomething that we believe in, but withoutany emotional/spiritual attachment toany emotional/spiritual attachment to

To ease us into others which are more To ease us into others which are morepersonal, e.g. ethics and religionpersonal, e.g. ethics and religion



c ence an oc ac ence an oc aScienceScience

Rene Descartes: distinction between mindRene Descartes: distinction between mind

and body, between spirit and matterand body, between spirit and matter

Science deals with matter - objectScience deals with matter - object

Religion deals with spirit - subjectReligion deals with spirit - subject

Social science deals with…what’s theSocial science deals with…what’s the

matter with spirit?matter with spirit?

Social science is the study of meaningSocial science is the study of meaning



Philosophy of sciencePhilosophy of science““What Is This Thing Called ScienceWhat Is This Thing Called Science” by Chalmers” by Chalmers

Four metaphysical principles of science:Four metaphysical principles of science:

AtomismAtomism Ontological invarianceOntological invariance

Universality of explanationUniversality of explanation

Explanatory reductionismExplanatory reductionism

Purpose of science:Purpose of science:

EklarenEklaren: causal explanation in order to predict and: causal explanation in order to predict andcontrolcontrol

Method of science:Method of science:

Logico-empiricismLogico-empiricism



Deduction and InductionDeduction and Induction

Two types of logic: deduction and induction Two types of logic: deduction and induction Deduction is truth-preserving while inductionDeduction is truth-preserving while induction

is knowledge-expandingis knowledge-expanding

Example of deductive logic:Example of deductive logic:1.1. If pigs fly, then I am a monkey’s uncleIf pigs fly, then I am a monkey’s uncle

2.2. Pigs flyPigs fly

3.3. Therefore, I am a monkey’s uncle Therefore, I am a monkey’s uncle

Example of inductive logic:Example of inductive logic:

1.1. All the pigs I’ve seen flyAll the pigs I’ve seen fly

2.2. Therefore, all pigs fly Therefore, all pigs fly



Russell’s “The InductivistRussell’s “The Inductivist

Turkey”Turkey”

1.1. I am always fed once a day, justI am always fed once a day, justbefore my owner’s dinner, regardlessbefore my owner’s dinner, regardlessof whether it is winter or summer,of whether it is winter or summer,

raining, or sunny.raining, or sunny.2.2. Therefore, I shall be fed tomorrow, Therefore, I shall be fed tomorrow,

just before my owner’s dinner just before my owner’s dinner

Tomorrow happens to be 24 Tomorrow happens to be 24thth December.December.



The Problem of InductionThe Problem of Induction

Example: All metals expand when heated.Example: All metals expand when heated.How do we know that?How do we know that?

1. All observed metals expand when heated1. All observed metals expand when heated

2. Therefore, all metals expand when heated2. Therefore, all metals expand when heated

What is the probability that this piece of metalWhat is the probability that this piece of metalwill expand when I heat it?will expand when I heat it?

Ans: 100%? 95%Ans: 100%? 95%

0%0%



Induced theories do not stand up to theInduced theories do not stand up to the

criteria for deduction, because thecriteria for deduction, because theconclusions out-warrant the premisesconclusions out-warrant the premises

Induced theories cannot be used to predictInduced theories cannot be used to predict

Induced theories cannot be used toInduced theories cannot be used togeneralizegeneralize

Therefore, scientific theories are only Therefore, scientific theories are only

tentatively true – untiltentatively true – until falsifiedfalsified



Karl Popper:Karl Popper:

FalsificationismFalsificationism Scientific theories are not eternally andScientific theories are not eternally and

universally true, they are true only until they areuniversally true, they are true only until they arefalsifiedfalsified

Good scientific theories must be falsifiable, theyGood scientific theories must be falsifiable, theymust make noble predictions, and they mustmust make noble predictions, and they must

explain more than the one which has beenexplain more than the one which has been

falsifiedfalsified

e.g. Einsteinian vs. Newtonian physicse.g. Einsteinian vs. Newtonian physics



FalsifiabilityFalsifiability

Problem 1 - Semantics: how precise is theProblem 1 - Semantics: how precise is thewording of our theories?wording of our theories?

E.g. Darwin: “the fittest survive”. What do weE.g. Darwin: “the fittest survive”. What do we

mean by ‘fit’? I am fit because I can run fastermean by ‘fit’? I am fit because I can run fasteror I am fit because I can sleep longer.or I am fit because I can sleep longer.

E.g. fortune tellers and horoscopes: “You willE.g. fortune tellers and horoscopes: “You will

become rich by the age of 45”. What do webecome rich by the age of 45”. What do wemean by ‘rich’? I am rich with happiness, I ammean by ‘rich’? I am rich with happiness, I amrich with health, I am spiritually rich, etc…rich with health, I am spiritually rich, etc…



Problem 2: How do we know what to falsify?Problem 2: How do we know what to falsify?1)1) The core theory The core theory2)2)

The auxiliary theories The auxiliary theories3)3) The observation The observation4)4) The instruments The instruments

E.g. According to Newtonian physics, all massesE.g. According to Newtonian physics, all massespossess gravity, therefore planets, withpossess gravity, therefore planets, withtheir huge masses, collapse towards theirtheir huge masses, collapse towards theircentre and are therefore roundishcentre and are therefore roundish

Galileo looking through his telescope and sawGalileo looking through his telescope and sawthat Mars is squarish.that Mars is squarish.

Does that falsify Newtonian theory?Does that falsify Newtonian theory?



Falsifying processesFalsifying processes

Falsify the auxiliary hypotheses: planetsFalsify the auxiliary hypotheses: planetsdo not necessarily have to be roundishdo not necessarily have to be roundish

Falsify the instruments: Galileo’sFalsify the instruments: Galileo’s

telescope is messed uptelescope is messed up Falsify the observation: Planets lookFalsify the observation: Planets look

squarish but they are in fact roundishsquarish but they are in fact roundish

Falsify the person: Galileo’s eyesight isFalsify the person: Galileo’s eyesight isnot goodnot good

Falsify the core: Newton is wrongFalsify the core: Newton is wrong



Unfalsifiability IUnfalsifiability I

Post-hoc auxiliary hypotheses:Post-hoc auxiliary hypotheses:

The story of phlogiston: when things are burnt, The story of phlogiston: when things are burnt,

they give off phlogiston, therefore theythey give off phlogiston, therefore theybecome lighterbecome lighter

Some elements, however, became heavierSome elements, however, became heavier

Post-hoc auxiliary hypothesis: phlogiston hasPost-hoc auxiliary hypothesis: phlogiston hasnegative weightnegative weight



Unfalisiability IIUnfalisiability IICircularity or ‘begging the question’Circularity or ‘begging the question’

““I am strong because I can run very fast. HowI am strong because I can run very fast. Howcould I run very fast? Because I am strong”could I run very fast? Because I am strong”

Darwin: The fittest survive, the survival of theDarwin: The fittest survive, the survival of thefittestfittest

Mencius: the one who has the mandate of Mencius: the one who has the mandate of heaven will become the emperor, the one whoheaven will become the emperor, the one whois the emperor has the mandate of heavenis the emperor has the mandate of heaven

Christian theology: God exists because theChristian theology: God exists because thebible says so, what the bible says is truebible says so, what the bible says is true

because it contains the word of Godbecause it contains the word of God



eyeball:eyeball:

Empiricism and theory-ladenEmpiricism and theory-laden

observationsobservations

Seeing X and seeing X as X are two different thingsSeeing X and seeing X as X are two different things

Did Galileo see Mars? Or was it swamp gas?Did Galileo see Mars? Or was it swamp gas? Gestalt figures: duck-rabbit, girl-old woman, B-13Gestalt figures: duck-rabbit, girl-old woman, B-13

Can we trust our senses? Why only five senses?Can we trust our senses? Why only five senses?

Only observations provide us with facts, and we can onlyOnly observations provide us with facts, and we can onlyobserve with the five senses.observe with the five senses.

How do we know we've got only five senses?How do we know we've got only five senses?

Through observations. Through observations.



Heinrich Hertz (Hz) and RadioHeinrich Hertz (Hz) and Radio

WavesWaves

1888: Hertz wanted to find out the1888: Hertz wanted to find out thewavelength of radio waveswavelength of radio waves Measurements all turn out inconsistentMeasurements all turn out inconsistent Does it falsify the theory that wavelengthsDoes it falsify the theory that wavelengths

are consistent?are consistent? Turned out that he did his experiments in a Turned out that he did his experiments in a

room with walls that rebounded the wavesroom with walls that rebounded the waves

and therefore messed up his measurementsand therefore messed up his measurements But how would he know that the walls areBut how would he know that the walls arerelevant or that they are irrelevant? –relevant or that they are irrelevant? –commonsense.commonsense.



Boiling point of waterBoiling point of water

Boiling point of water is 100 degrees centigradeBoiling point of water is 100 degrees centigrade

How do we know?How do we know?

How about the shape of the container?How about the shape of the container?

The color? The color?

The smell? The smell?

The height of the person? The height of the person?



““As Blind as a Bat, as Deaf as aAs Blind as a Bat, as Deaf as a

Frog”Frog” Bats are able to avoid obstacles even with the lights off Bats are able to avoid obstacles even with the lights off

Hypothesis: Bats see with their earsHypothesis: Bats see with their earsExperiment: Scientists glued a bat’s ears shut, set it free in a darkExperiment: Scientists glued a bat’s ears shut, set it free in a dark

room, and observe it slamming into walls.room, and observe it slamming into walls.

Conclusion: Bats become blind with their ears glued shutConclusion: Bats become blind with their ears glued shut

Blow a horn, the frog movesBlow a horn, the frog movesHypothesis: frogs listen with their legsHypothesis: frogs listen with their legs

Experiment: cut off one leg, blow a horn, the frog moves, cut off Experiment: cut off one leg, blow a horn, the frog moves, cut off another leg, blow a horn, frog moves…cut off all its legs, blow aanother leg, blow a horn, frog moves…cut off all its legs, blow ahorn, the frog doesn’t move.horn, the frog doesn’t move.

Conclusion: frogs become deaf with their legs cut off Conclusion: frogs become deaf with their legs cut off



Miscellaneous notesMiscellaneous notes Ockham’s Razor: the simplest explanation is the bestOckham’s Razor: the simplest explanation is the best

explanation. Why so?explanation. Why so?

Fallacy of composition: the whole can be explained byFallacy of composition: the whole can be explained bythe simplest parts. How about life? Despite knowingthe simplest parts. How about life? Despite knowing

the components of a cell, biologists could not createthe components of a cell, biologists could not createlife.life.

Reductionism: if the whole can be explained by theReductionism: if the whole can be explained by the

simplest parts (atomism), then quantum physicssimplest parts (atomism), then quantum physicsshould be able to explain why I am giving this lecture,should be able to explain why I am giving this lecture,and that it should be the only form of knowledge worthand that it should be the only form of knowledge worthpursuing.pursuing.



ScienceScience

Application of scientism onto the study of humansApplication of scientism onto the study of humans

Humans are subjects, i.e. we have freewill, therefore, we canHumans are subjects, i.e. we have freewill, therefore, we can

choosechoose Does that mean that all the metaphysical assumptions of Does that mean that all the metaphysical assumptions of

science cannot apply to social science?science cannot apply to social science?

Does that mean that disciplines like economics, psychology,Does that mean that disciplines like economics, psychology,

sociology, and political science are arts rather than sciences?sociology, and political science are arts rather than sciences? Does that mean that social scientists can only adopt theDoes that mean that social scientists can only adopt the

methods of science and not its metaphysics? Should wemethods of science and not its metaphysics? Should weconduct experiments on humans? Should we subject humansconduct experiments on humans? Should we subject humansto natural laws?to natural laws?



Some distinctionsSome distinctions Wilhelm Dilthey: naturwissenschaften vs.Wilhelm Dilthey: naturwissenschaften vs.

geisteswissenschaftengeisteswissenschaften Johann Gustav Droyson: Erklaren vs. Verstehen Johann Gustav Droyson: Erklaren vs. Verstehen

Wilhelm Wildelband: nomothetic vs. idiographicWilhelm Wildelband: nomothetic vs. idiographic

Naturalism vs. Scientism: objectivity, causalNaturalism vs. Scientism: objectivity, causalexplanation, empirical adjudication vs.explanation, empirical adjudication vs.

commitment to metaphysical principles aboutcommitment to metaphysical principles about

subject-matter and scope of explanationssubject-matter and scope of explanations

prevalent at particular historical periodsprevalent at particular historical periods

P f i lP f i l



Purpose of socialPurpose of social

sciences:sciences:1. Prediction and control:1. Prediction and control:

It is possible to predict human behaviors?It is possible to predict human behaviors?

The Cartesian duality: humans are both biological and The Cartesian duality: humans are both biological andcultural, we are both minds and bodiescultural, we are both minds and bodies

Problem: if human behaviors are predictable, does thatProblem: if human behaviors are predictable, does thatmean that we have no freewill?mean that we have no freewill?

Even if they are predictable, how about the problem of Even if they are predictable, how about the problem of induction?induction?

Ethical problem: should social scientists contribute to theEthical problem: should social scientists contribute to the

control of humans?control of humans?



Law and Causality in the socialLaw and Causality in the social

sciencessciences Is there such a thing as a ‘law’ that governs human behaviors?Is there such a thing as a ‘law’ that governs human behaviors?

i.e. the oxymoron: freewill lawi.e. the oxymoron: freewill law Even if there is, remember what Hume says about causalityEven if there is, remember what Hume says about causality

Any law describing social phenomena can be falsified simply byAny law describing social phenomena can be falsified simply byone case of agencyone case of agency

Social phenomena not invariant in space and timeSocial phenomena not invariant in space and time

No way to establish “Ceteris Paribus” because society is not aNo way to establish “Ceteris Paribus” because society is not aclosed systemclosed system

Understanding social phenomena in terms of ‘laws’ takes theUnderstanding social phenomena in terms of ‘laws’ takes themeaning out of ‘meaning’meaning out of ‘meaning’

No generalizations of social phenomena approach theNo generalizations of social phenomena approach theuniversality required of ‘natural laws’universality required of ‘natural laws’

The usual suspects: economics and psychology The usual suspects: economics and psychology

P f i l iP rpose of social science



Purpose of social sciencePurpose of social science

IIIIUnderstanding (Understanding (verstehenverstehen))

Explication of meaning behind human actionsExplication of meaning behind human actions Causal explanation of meaningful action – human intentionCausal explanation of meaningful action – human intention

as the ‘cause’ of ‘action’? (How do we know that nothingas the ‘cause’ of ‘action’? (How do we know that nothingcomes before or between my intent and my action?)comes before or between my intent and my action?)

Hermeneutic circle: to understand the whole we mustHermeneutic circle: to understand the whole we mustunderstand the part and vice versa. But how partial and howunderstand the part and vice versa. But how partial and howholistic should we go? Do psychologists need to know aboutholistic should we go? Do psychologists need to know aboutglobalization in order to explain why I have this hairstyle?globalization in order to explain why I have this hairstyle?

Is there then, no such thing as ‘objectivity’ in the socialIs there then, no such thing as ‘objectivity’ in the social

sciences? Two anthropologists writing about the same thingsciences? Two anthropologists writing about the same thingwill generate different interpretations. How then can wewill generate different interpretations. How then can weclaim to be scientific?claim to be scientific?

The usual suspects: sociologists and anthropologists The usual suspects: sociologists and anthropologists

et o o og ca re uct on sme o o og ca re uc on sm



et o o og ca re uct on sme o o og ca re uc on smvs. holismvs. holism

Ontological question: are social facts distinctOntological question: are social facts distinct

from facts about populations of individuals?from facts about populations of individuals?

Durkheim (holist): “Society is not the mereDurkheim (holist): “Society is not the mere

sum of individuals…the system formed bysum of individuals…the system formed bytheir association represents a specific realitytheir association represents a specific reality

that has its own characteristics”that has its own characteristics”

Jarvie (reductionist): “Army is merely the Jarvie (reductionist): “Army is merely theplural of soldier and all statements about theplural of soldier and all statements about the

army can be reduced to statements about thearmy can be reduced to statements about the

particular soldiers comprising the army”particular soldiers comprising the army”

Methodological reductionism vsMethodological reductionism vs



Methodological reductionism vs.Methodological reductionism vs.

holism IIholism IIExplanatory question: Are social explanations distinctExplanatory question: Are social explanations distinct

from explanations in terms of the psychology of from explanations in terms of the psychology of individuals?individuals?

Marx (holist): “In the social production of theirMarx (holist): “In the social production of their

existence, men inevitably enter into relations…theexistence, men inevitably enter into relations…thetotality of these relations…constitutes the economictotality of these relations…constitutes the economic

structure of society, the real foundation on whichstructure of society, the real foundation on whicharises a legal and political superstructure, and toarises a legal and political superstructure, and towhich corresponds definite forms of socialwhich corresponds definite forms of socialconsciousness…”consciousness…”

Mill (reductionist): “The laws of the phenomena of Mill (reductionist): “The laws of the phenomena of

society are…the laws of individual human nature”society are…the laws of individual human nature”



Durkheim’s solution/cop-Durkheim’s solution/cop-

outout

““I have never said that sociology contains nothingI have never said that sociology contains nothingthat is psychological and I fully accept…that it isthat is psychological and I fully accept…that it is

a psychology, but distinct from individuala psychology, but distinct from individual

psychology” (1895)psychology” (1895)

Does he mean that society is a sentient being?Does he mean that society is a sentient being?

That we are merely organs of this sentient That we are merely organs of this sentientorganism? How about our freewill?organism? How about our freewill?

e ar o t e oc a o ne ar o e oc a o n



e ar o t e oc a o ne ar o e oc a o nGreenwood)Greenwood)

What is the difference between a society and an aggregate of What is the difference between a society and an aggregate of

individuals? i.e. what is the “mark” of the social?individuals? i.e. what is the “mark” of the social?

E.g. a group of individuals simultaneously opening theirE.g. a group of individuals simultaneously opening theirumbrellas. Is that social or individual behavior?umbrellas. Is that social or individual behavior?

The social is marked by: “a set of recognized arrangements, The social is marked by: “a set of recognized arrangements,agreements, conventions,agreements, conventions, sharedshared by a group of individuals”by a group of individuals”

Methodological question: How do we know it is shared? WeMethodological question: How do we know it is shared? We

have to get into the minds and souls of people to know that!have to get into the minds and souls of people to know that!Even if it is indeed shared, could it not be an accident, or aEven if it is indeed shared, could it not be an accident, or a

biological necessity? E.g. smiling when happy.biological necessity? E.g. smiling when happy.



Functionalist explanation: a futureFunctionalist explanation: a future

for sociobiology?for sociobiology?

Essentially a teleological explanation, that all things exist for a reasonEssentially a teleological explanation, that all things exist for a reason(if that is the case, then what is the reason for all things existing for a(if that is the case, then what is the reason for all things existing for a

reason?)reason?)

Structure of explanation:Structure of explanation:

P (practice) persists in S (society) because it produces B (benefit) for SP (practice) persists in S (society) because it produces B (benefit) for S(satisfies condition for survival/health of S). i.e. P persists because it is(satisfies condition for survival/health of S). i.e. P persists because it isfunctional.functional.

E.g. Religious practices ensure social cohesion (Durkheim, Radcliff-Brown)E.g. Religious practices ensure social cohesion (Durkheim, Radcliff-Brown)

bl i h f i li



Problems with functionalismProblems with functionalism Teleological fallacy: function not equivalent to purpose because society is not a Teleological fallacy: function not equivalent to purpose because society is not a

sentient beingsentient being

Description of norms become prescriptive (religion is essential for social cohesion so allDescription of norms become prescriptive (religion is essential for social cohesion so all

atheists are rebel rousers)atheists are rebel rousers) Practices that serve useful function does not mean that they persist because they servePractices that serve useful function does not mean that they persist because they serve

useful functionuseful function

Other practices can produce B but why only P persists? (Atheists have no socialOther practices can produce B but why only P persists? (Atheists have no social

cohesion? How about Richard Dawkins’ organization?)cohesion? How about Richard Dawkins’ organization?)

What do we mean by ‘benefit’ or ‘health’? What is the objective of a particular function?What do we mean by ‘benefit’ or ‘health’? What is the objective of a particular function?

Is Singapore a healthy society? Religion causes conflict as well.Is Singapore a healthy society? Religion causes conflict as well.

Appeal to biological theories but which is unfalsifiable: a biological phenomenon existAppeal to biological theories but which is unfalsifiable: a biological phenomenon existbecause it has allowed the organism to survive, but if the organism has not survived,because it has allowed the organism to survive, but if the organism has not survived,

then no one could have even noticed the existence of that biological phenomenon, if nothen no one could have even noticed the existence of that biological phenomenon, if no

one has noticed the existence of that biological phenomenon, how can anyone showone has noticed the existence of that biological phenomenon, how can anyone show

that this biological phenomenon is ‘dysfunctional’? Why do organisms die? Isn’t deaththat this biological phenomenon is ‘dysfunctional’? Why do organisms die? Isn’t deathdysfunctional?dysfunctional?

Are there societies that have not survived? Societies are not like organisms, we cannotAre there societies that have not survived? Societies are not like organisms, we cannot

see it as a closed system. If it is not a closed system, then it cannot die. If it cannot die,see it as a closed system. If it is not a closed system, then it cannot die. If it cannot die,then everything that it possesses is functional. If everything is functional, how canthen everything that it possesses is functional. If everything is functional, how can

functionalist explanations be falsifiable and therefore scientific?functionalist explanations be falsifiable and therefore scientific?



Miscellaneous notesMiscellaneous notes

Experimentation in psychology: does not replicateExperimentation in psychology: does not replicate

real lifereal life

Theory-laden observation, prejudice, ethnocentrism. Theory-laden observation, prejudice, ethnocentrism.

E.g. Cartesian dualism in social theoryE.g. Cartesian dualism in social theory

Is it possible to understand the Others when theIs it possible to understand the Others when theinterpretive grid is itself a cultural system?interpretive grid is itself a cultural system?

Is history a social science? It seems to employIs history a social science? It seems to employ

haphazard tools from the other social sciences.haphazard tools from the other social sciences.



ConclusionConclusion What is Truth?What is Truth?

What do we mean by ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’ or ‘fact’ orWhat do we mean by ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’ or ‘fact’ or‘actually’ or ‘in fact’?‘actually’ or ‘in fact’?

Why are we so concerned with truth, that we are afraidWhy are we so concerned with truth, that we are afraidthat it does not exist? Is there a social scientificthat it does not exist? Is there a social scientificexplanation for this fear? Could this fear be the master of explanation for this fear? Could this fear be the master of

our belief in something true?our belief in something true? Can science tell us about the true nature of nature?Can science tell us about the true nature of nature?

Can social science tell us about the true nature of culture?Can social science tell us about the true nature of culture?

Why do we seek to explain ‘change’ when it is ‘un-change’Why do we seek to explain ‘change’ when it is ‘un-change’

that is the exception?that is the exception? Is reality really after all, socially constructed?Is reality really after all, socially constructed?

Isn’t there anything that I can be absolutely sure of?Isn’t there anything that I can be absolutely sure of?

What if there isn’t? Does that mean that I am screwed?What if there isn’t? Does that mean that I am screwed?

philo of science and social science

Documents