Editing Philosophy of science (section)

==Philosophy of particular sciences==
{{blockquote|There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Dennett|first1=Daniel|title=Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life|date=1995|publisher=Simon and Schuster|isbn=978-1-4391-2629-5|page=21|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Y77BAwAAQBAJ&q=%22there+is+only+science+whose+philosophical+baggage+is+taken+on+board%22&pg=PA21}}</ref>|Daniel Dennett|''[[Darwin's Dangerous Idea]]'', 1995}}
In addition to addressing the general questions regarding science and induction, many philosophers of science are occupied by investigating foundational problems in particular sciences. They also examine the implications of particular sciences for broader philosophical questions. The late 20th and early 21st century has seen a rise in the number of practitioners of philosophy of a particular science.<ref name="StanPhilNeuro">{{cite web|url = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2010/entries/neuroscience/|title = The Philosophy of Neuroscience|last1 = Bickle|first1 = John|last2 = Mandik|first2 = Peter|last3 = Landreth|first3 = Anthony|year = 2010|website = Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|postscript = (Summer 2010 Edition)|editor1-last = Zalta|editor1-first = Edward N.|access-date = 2015-12-28|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20131202064113/http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2010/entries/neuroscience/|archive-date = 2013-12-02|url-status = live}}</ref>

===Philosophy of statistics===
{{Main|Philosophy of statistics}}
The problem of induction discussed above is seen in another form in debates over the [[foundations of statistics]].<ref>{{cite journal
|url = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/statistics/
|title = Philosophy of Statistics
|access-date = 2015-10-29
|last = Romeijn
|first = Jan-Willem
|year = 2014
|website = Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
|editor1-last = Zalta
|editor1-first = Edward N.
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20180914115858/https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/statistics/
|archive-date = 2018-09-14
|url-status = live
}}</ref> The standard approach to [[statistical hypothesis testing]] avoids claims about whether evidence supports a hypothesis or makes it more probable. Instead, the typical test yields a [[p-value]], which is the probability of the ''evidence'' being such as it is, under the assumption that the [[null hypothesis]] is true. If the ''p''-value is too high, the hypothesis is rejected, in a way analogous to falsification. In contrast, [[Bayesian inference]] seeks to assign probabilities to hypotheses. Related topics in philosophy of statistics include [[probability interpretations]], [[overfitting]], and the difference between [[Correlation does not imply causation|correlation and causation]].

===Philosophy of mathematics===
{{Main|Philosophy of mathematics}}
Philosophy of mathematics is concerned with the philosophical foundations and implications of [[mathematics]].<ref>{{cite journal
|url = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/philosophy-mathematics/
|title = Philosophy of Mathematics
|access-date = 2015-10-29
|last = Horsten
|first = Leon
|year = 2015
|website = Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
|editor1-last=Zalta
|editor1-first= Edward N.}}</ref> The central questions are whether [[number]]s, [[triangle]]s, and other mathematical entities exist independently of the human [[mind]] and what is the nature of mathematical [[proposition]]s. Is asking whether "1 + 1 = 2" is true fundamentally different from asking whether a ball is red? Was [[calculus]] invented or discovered? A related question is whether learning mathematics requires [[A priori and a posteriori|experience or reason alone]]. What does it mean to prove a mathematical [[theorem]] and how does one know whether a [[mathematical proof]] is correct? Philosophers of mathematics also aim to clarify the relationships between mathematics and [[logic]], human capabilities such as [[Intuition (psychology)|intuition]], and the [[material universe]].

===Philosophy of physics===
{{Main|Philosophy of physics}}
Philosophy of physics is the study of the fundamental, [[philosophy|philosophical]] questions underlying modern [[physics]], the study of [[matter]] and [[energy]] and how they interact. The main questions concern the nature of [[Philosophy of space and time|space and time]], [[atom]]s and [[atomism]]. Also included are the predictions of [[physical cosmology|cosmology]], the [[interpretation of quantum mechanics]], the foundations of [[statistical mechanics]], [[causality (physics)|causality]], [[determinism]], and the nature of [[physical law]]s.<ref>{{cite web
|url = http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm/
|title = Quantum Mechanics
|access-date = 2015-10-29
|last = Ismael
|first = Jenann
|year = 2015
|website = Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
|editor1-last = Zalta
|editor1-first = Edward N.
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20151106193537/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm/
|archive-date = 2015-11-06
|url-status = live
}}</ref> Classically, several of these questions were studied as part of [[metaphysics]] (for example, those about causality, determinism, and space and time).

===Philosophy of chemistry===
{{Main|Philosophy of chemistry}}
Philosophy of chemistry is the philosophical study of the [[methodology]] and content of the science of [[chemistry]]. It is explored by philosophers, chemists, and philosopher-chemist teams. It includes research on general philosophy of science issues as applied to chemistry. For example, can all chemical phenomena be explained by [[quantum mechanics]] or is it not possible to reduce chemistry to physics? For another example, chemists have discussed the philosophy of [[Philosophy of science#Confirmation of theories|how theories are confirmed]] in the context of confirming [[reaction mechanism]]s. Determining reaction mechanisms is difficult because they cannot be observed directly. Chemists can use a number of indirect measures as evidence to rule out certain mechanisms, but they are often unsure if the remaining mechanism is correct because there are many other possible mechanisms that they have not tested or even thought of.<ref name="WeisbergEtal2011">{{cite web|url = http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chemistry/|title = Philosophy of Chemistry|access-date = 2014-02-14|last1 = Weisberg|first1 = Michael|last2 = Needham|first2 = Paul|last3 = Hendry|first3 = Robin|year = 2011|website = Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20140407013224/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chemistry/|archive-date = 2014-04-07|url-status = live}}</ref> Philosophers have also sought to clarify the meaning of chemical concepts which do not refer to specific physical entities, such as [[chemical bonds]].

===Philosophy of astronomy===
The philosophy of astronomy seeks to understand and analyze the methodologies and technologies used by experts in the discipline, focusing on how observations made about [[space]] and [[astrophysics|astrophysical phenomena]] can be studied. Given that astronomers rely and use theories and formulas from other scientific disciplines, such as chemistry and physics, the pursuit of understanding how knowledge can be obtained about the cosmos, as well as the relation in which Earth and the [[Solar System]] have within personal views of humanity's place in the universe, philosophical insights into how facts about space can be scientifically analyzed and configure with other established knowledge is a main point of inquiry.

===Philosophy of Earth sciences===
The philosophy of Earth science is concerned with how humans obtain and verify knowledge of the workings of the Earth system, including the [[atmosphere]], [[hydrosphere]], and [[geosphere]] (solid earth). Earth scientists' ways of knowing and habits of mind share important commonalities with other sciences, but also have distinctive attributes that emerge from the complex, heterogeneous, unique, long-lived, and non-manipulatable nature of the Earth system.

===Philosophy of biology===
{{Main|Philosophy of biology}}
[[File:P1160335 peter godfrey-smith reading.jpg|thumb|upright|right|Peter Godfrey-Smith was awarded the [[Lakatos Award]]<ref>{{Cite web | url=http://www2.lse.ac.uk/philosophy/LakatosAward/lakatosawardarchive/lakatosaward2010announcement.aspx | title=Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method | access-date=2018-07-03 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120802034342/http://www2.lse.ac.uk/philosophy/LakatosAward/lakatosawardarchive/lakatosaward2010announcement.aspx | archive-date=2012-08-02 | url-status=live }}</ref> for his 2009 book ''Darwinian Populations and Natural Selection'', which discusses the philosophical foundations of the theory of [[evolution]].<ref name="Gewertz2007">{{Cite journal|title=The philosophy of evolution: Godfrey-Smith takes an ingenious evolutionary approach to how the mind works|journal=Harvard University Gazette|url=http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2007/02.08/03-godfreysmith.html|date=February 8, 2007|first=Ken|last=Gewertz|access-date=July 3, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081011132246/http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2007/02.08/03-godfreysmith.html|archive-date=October 11, 2008|url-status=dead}}.</ref><ref>Darwinian Populations and Natural Selection. Oxford University Press. 2010.</ref>]]
Philosophy of biology deals with [[epistemology|epistemological]], [[metaphysics|metaphysical]], and [[ethics|ethical]] issues in the [[Biology|biological]] and [[Medical research|biomedical]] sciences. Although philosophers of science and philosophers generally have long been interested in biology (e.g., [[Aristotle]], [[Descartes]], [[Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz|Leibniz]] and even [[Immanuel Kant|Kant]]), philosophy of biology only emerged as an independent field of philosophy in the 1960s and 1970s.<ref>Hull D. (1969), What philosophy of biology is not, Journal of the History of Biology, 2, pp.&nbsp;241–268.</ref> Philosophers of science began to pay increasing attention to developments in biology, from the rise of the [[Modern synthesis (20th century)|modern synthesis]] in the 1930s and 1940s to the discovery of the structure of [[deoxyribonucleic acid]] (DNA) in 1953 to more recent advances in [[genetic engineering]]. Other key ideas such as the [[Reduction (philosophy)|reduction]] of all life processes to [[biochemical]] reactions as well as the incorporation of [[psychology]] into a broader [[neuroscience]] are also addressed. Research in current philosophy of biology includes investigation of the foundations of evolutionary theory (such as [[Peter Godfrey-Smith]]'s work),<ref>Recent examples include Okasha S. (2006), ''Evolution and the Levels of Selection''. Oxford: Oxford University Press, and Godfrey-Smith P. (2009), ''Darwinian Populations and Natural Selection''. Oxford: Oxford University Press.</ref> and the role of viruses as persistent symbionts in host genomes. As a consequence, the evolution of genetic content order is seen as the result of competent genome editors {{explanation needed|date=June 2020}} in contrast to former narratives in which error replication events (mutations) dominated.

===Philosophy of medicine===
{{Main|Philosophy of medicine}}
[[File:Papyrus text; fragment of Hippocratic oath. Wellcome L0034090.jpg|thumb|upright|left|A fragment of the [[Hippocratic Oath]] from [[Oxyrhynchus Papyri|the third century]]]]
Beyond [[medical ethics]] and [[bioethics]], the philosophy of medicine is a branch of philosophy that includes the [[epistemology]] and [[ontology]]/[[metaphysics]] of medicine. Within the epistemology of medicine, [[evidence-based medicine]] (EBM) (or evidence-based practice (EBP)) has attracted attention, most notably the roles of randomisation,<ref name="Papineau 1994">{{cite journal | last1 = Papineau | first1 = D | year = 1994 | title = The Virtues of Randomization | journal = British Journal for the Philosophy of Science | volume = 45 | issue = 2| pages = 437–450 | doi=10.1093/bjps/45.2.437| s2cid = 123314067 }}</ref><ref name="Worrall 2002">{{cite journal | last1 = Worrall | first1 = J | year = 2002 | title = What Evidence in Evidence-Based Medicine? | journal = Philosophy of Science | volume = 69 | issue = 3| pages = S316–330 | jstor = 3081103 | doi = 10.1086/341855 | s2cid = 55078796 }}</ref><ref name="Worrall 2007">{{cite journal | last1 = Worrall | first1 = J. | year = 2007 | title = Why there's no cause to randomize | journal = British Journal for the Philosophy of Science | volume = 58 | issue = 3| pages = 451–488 | doi=10.1093/bjps/axm024| citeseerx = 10.1.1.120.7314 | s2cid = 16964968 }}</ref> [[Blind experiment|blinding]] and [[placebo]] controls. Related to these areas of investigation, ontologies of specific interest to the philosophy of medicine include [[Cartesian dualism]], the monogenetic conception of disease<ref name="Lee 2012">Lee, K., 2012. ''The Philosophical Foundations of Modern Medicine'', London/New York, Palgrave/Macmillan.</ref> and the conceptualization of 'placebos' and 'placebo effects'.<ref name="Grünbaum 1981">{{cite journal | last1 = Grünbaum | first1 = A | year = 1981 | title = The Placebo Concept | journal = Behaviour Research and Therapy | volume = 19 | issue = 2| pages = 157–167 | doi=10.1016/0005-7967(81)90040-1| pmid = 7271692 }}</ref><ref name="Gøtzsche 1994">{{cite journal | last1 = Gøtzsche | first1 = P.C. | s2cid = 33650340 | year = 1994 | title = Is there logic in the placebo? | doi = 10.1016/s0140-6736(94)92273-x | pmid = 7934350 | journal = Lancet | volume = 344 | issue = 8927| pages = 925–926 }}</ref><ref name="Nunn 2009">Nunn, R., 2009. It's time to put the placebo out of our misery" ''British Medical Journal'' 338, b1568.</ref><ref name="Turner 2012">{{cite journal | last1 = Turner | first1 = A | s2cid = 4488616 | year = 2012 | title = Placebos" and the logic of placebo comparison | journal = Biology & Philosophy | volume = 27 | issue = 3 | pages = 419–432 | doi = 10.1007/s10539-011-9289-8 | hdl = 1983/6426ce5a-ab57-419c-bc3c-e57d20608807 | url = https://research-information.bristol.ac.uk/en/publications/placebos-and-the-logic-of-placebo-comparison(6426ce5a-ab57-419c-bc3c-e57d20608807).html | access-date = 2018-12-29 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20181229075454/https://research-information.bristol.ac.uk/en/publications/placebos-and-the-logic-of-placebo-comparison(6426ce5a-ab57-419c-bc3c-e57d20608807).html | archive-date = 2018-12-29 | url-status = live | hdl-access = free }}</ref> There is also a growing interest in the metaphysics of medicine,<ref name="Worrall 2011">{{cite journal | last1 = Worrall | first1 = J | year = 2011 | title = Causality in medicine: getting back to the Hill top| journal = Preventive Medicine | volume = 53 | issue = 4–5| pages = 235–238 | doi=10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.08.009 | pmid=21888926}}</ref> particularly the idea of causation. Philosophers of medicine might not only be interested in how medical knowledge is generated, but also in the nature of such phenomena. Causation is of interest because the purpose of much medical research is to establish causal relationships, e.g. what causes disease, or what causes people to get better.<ref name="Cartwright 2009">{{cite journal | last1 = Cartwright | first1 = N | s2cid = 56203659 | year = 2009 | title = What are randomised controlled trials good for? | journal = Philosophical Studies | volume = 147 | issue = 1 | pages = 59–70 | doi = 10.1007/s11098-009-9450-2 | url = https://cloudfront.escholarship.org/dist/prd/content/qt42v4w8k1/qt42v4w8k1.pdf | access-date = 2019-09-01 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20180724112810/https://cloudfront.escholarship.org/dist/prd/content/qt42v4w8k1/qt42v4w8k1.pdf | archive-date = 2018-07-24 | url-status = live | doi-access = free }}</ref>

===Philosophy of psychiatry===
{{main|Philosophy of psychiatry}}
Philosophy of psychiatry explores philosophical questions relating to [[psychiatry]] and [[mental illness]]. The philosopher of science and medicine Dominic Murphy identifies three areas of exploration in the philosophy of psychiatry. The first concerns the examination of psychiatry as a science, using the tools of the philosophy of science more broadly. The second entails the examination of the concepts employed in discussion of mental illness, including the experience of mental illness, and the normative questions it raises. The third area concerns the links and discontinuities between the [[philosophy of mind]] and [[psychopathology]].<ref>Murphy, Dominic (Spring 2015). "[http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/psychiatry/ Philosophy of Psychiatry] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190318031208/https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/psychiatry/ |date=2019-03-18 }}". ''[[The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]'', edited by Edward N. Zalta. Accessed 18 August 2016.</ref>

===Philosophy of psychology===
{{Main|Philosophy of psychology}}
[[File:Wundt-research-group.jpg|thumb|[[Wilhelm Wundt]] (seated) with colleagues in his psychological laboratory, the first of its kind]]
Philosophy of psychology refers to issues at the theoretical foundations of modern [[psychology]]. Some of these issues are epistemological concerns about the methodology of psychological investigation. For example, is the best method for studying psychology to focus only on the response of [[behaviorism|behavior]] to external stimuli or should psychologists focus on [[mentalism (psychology)|mental perception and thought processes]]?<ref name="Routpsych">{{cite book|last1 = Mason|first1 = Kelby|first2 = Chandra Sekhar|last2 = Sripada|first3 = Stephen|last3 = Stich|title = Routledge Companion to Twentieth-Century Philosophy|chapter = Philosophy of Psychology|chapter-url = http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~stich/Publications/Papers/PHILOSOPHYofPSYCHOLOGY.pdf|editor-last = Moral|editor-first = Dermot|publisher = Routledge|location = London|year = 2010|access-date = 2014-02-20|archive-date = 2017-05-17|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170517012459/http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~stich/Publications/Papers/PHILOSOPHYofPSYCHOLOGY.pdf|url-status = dead}}</ref> If the latter, an important question is how the internal experiences of others can be measured. Self-reports of feelings and beliefs may not be reliable because, even in cases in which there is no apparent incentive for subjects to intentionally deceive in their answers, self-deception or selective memory may affect their responses. Then even in the case of accurate self-reports, how can responses be compared across individuals? Even if two individuals respond with the same answer on a [[Likert scale]], they may be experiencing very different things.

Other issues in philosophy of psychology are philosophical questions about the nature of mind, brain, and cognition, and are perhaps more commonly thought of as part of [[cognitive science]], or [[philosophy of mind]]. For example, are humans [[rationality|rational]] creatures?<ref name="Routpsych" /> Is there any sense in which they have [[free will]], and how does that relate to the experience of making choices? Philosophy of psychology also closely monitors contemporary work conducted in [[cognitive neuroscience]], [[psycholinguistics]], and [[artificial intelligence]], questioning what they can and cannot explain in psychology.

Philosophy of psychology is a relatively young field, because psychology only became a discipline of its own in the late 1800s. In particular, [[neurophilosophy]] has just recently become its own field with the works of [[Paul Churchland]] and [[Patricia Churchland]].<ref name=StanPhilNeuro/> Philosophy of mind, by contrast, has been a well-established discipline since before psychology was a field of study at all. It is concerned with questions about the very nature of mind, the qualities of experience, and particular issues like the debate between [[Mind-body dualism|dualism]] and [[monism]].

===Philosophy of social science===
{{Main|Philosophy of social science}}
The philosophy of social science is the study of the logic and method of the [[social sciences]], such as [[sociology]] and [[cultural anthropology]].<ref>{{cite book |first=Martin |last=Hollis |author-link=Martin Hollis (philosopher)|year=1994 |title=The Philosophy of Social Science: An Introduction|publisher=Cambridge|isbn=978-0-521-44780-5 }}</ref> Philosophers of social science are concerned with the differences and similarities between the social and the [[natural science]]s, causal relationships between social phenomena, the possible existence of social laws, and the [[ontology|ontological]] significance of [[structure and agency]].

The French philosopher, [[Auguste Comte]] (1798–1857), established the epistemological perspective of [[positivism]] in ''The Course in Positivist Philosophy'', a series of texts published between 1830 and 1842. The first three volumes of the ''Course'' dealt chiefly with the [[natural sciences]] already in existence ([[geoscience]], [[astronomy]], [[physics]], [[chemistry]], [[biology]]), whereas the latter two emphasised the inevitable coming of [[social science]]: "''[[sociology|sociologie]]''".<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/comte/ |title=Stanford Encyclopaedia: Auguste Comte |access-date=2010-01-10 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171011041841/https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/comte/ |archive-date=2017-10-11 |url-status=live }}</ref> For Comte, the natural sciences had to necessarily arrive first, before humanity could adequately channel its efforts into the most challenging and complex "Queen science" of human society itself. Comte offers an evolutionary system proposing that society undergoes three phases in its quest for the truth according to a general '[[law of three stages]]'. These are (1) the ''theological'', (2) the ''metaphysical'', and (3) the ''positive''.<ref>{{cite book|last=Giddens|title=Positivism and Sociology|first = Anthony|publisher = Heinemann |date = 1974|isbn = 978-0435823405}}</ref>

Comte's positivism established the initial philosophical foundations for formal sociology and [[social research]]. [[Durkheim]], [[Marx]], and [[Max Weber|Weber]] are more typically cited as the fathers of contemporary social science. In [[psychology]], a positivistic approach has historically been favoured in [[behaviourism]]. Positivism has also been espoused by '[[Technocracy (bureaucratic)|technocrats]]' who believe in the inevitability of [[social progress]] through science and technology.<ref>Schunk, ''Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective'', 5th, 315</ref>

The positivist perspective has been associated with '[[scientism]]'; the view that the methods of the natural sciences may be applied to all areas of investigation, be it philosophical, social scientific, or otherwise. Among most social scientists and historians, orthodox positivism has long since lost popular support. Today, practitioners of both social and physical sciences instead take into account the distorting effect of observer [[bias]] and structural limitations. This scepticism has been facilitated by a general weakening of deductivist accounts of science by philosophers such as [[Thomas Kuhn]], and new philosophical movements such as [[critical realism (philosophy of the social sciences)|critical realism]] and [[neopragmatism]]. The philosopher-sociologist [[Jürgen Habermas]] has critiqued pure [[instrumental rationality]] as meaning that scientific-thinking becomes something akin to [[ideology]] itself.<ref>Outhwaite, William, 1988 ''Habermas: Key Contemporary Thinkers'', Polity Press (Second Edition 2009), {{ISBN|978-0-7456-4328-1}} p. 68</ref>

===Philosophy of technology===
{{Main|Philosophy of technology}}
The philosophy of technology is a sub-field of [[philosophy]] that studies the nature of [[technology]]. Specific research topics include study of the role of tacit and explicit knowledge in creating and using technology, the nature of functions in technological artifacts, the role of values in design, and ethics related to technology. Technology and engineering can both involve the application of scientific knowledge. The [[philosophy of engineering]] is an emerging sub-field of the broader philosophy of technology.