Philosophy of science is concerned with the foundations, methods and implications of science. Philosophy of science sometimes overlaps with metaphysics, ontology and epistemology, but has to be distinguished from these other sub-disciplines of philosophy.

         It raises questions about the aims of science, how to draw the distinction to non-science (including religion).  (Karl Popper famously regarded this as the central question of a philosophy of science). It reflects on the potential distinction between "predictions" and "explanations" and raises questions concerning a dependency of the concept of "explanation" on the concept of "causal relation". (The Logical Empiricists thought that could give an account of "explanation" independently of "causal relation"). Philosophy of science is concerned with the grounds of the validity of scientific reasoning (hypo-deductive accounts, confirmation theories, instrumentalism etc.), how to understand "evidence", connected with it a possible reduction of theoretical terms to observational terms, and the problem of the "theory-dependency" of observation. 

Part A of this course:

We will begin with the concepts of "science", "truth","valid inference" and "proof", "epagoge", different conceptions of "evidence", briefly cover some misconceptions concerning “induction”, and will then read and discuss David Hume’s paradigmatic analysis of the structure of “empirical reasoning” in his "Enquiry"; i.e. the infamous problem of induction, i.e. the problem concerning the possibility of justifying necessity claims "from" "out of" experience, at all;  Then we will continue with John Stuart Mill’s conception of causality (i.e. his distinction between "necessary and sufficient conditions") in his "Logic”, his “method of agreement and disagreement”and the concepts of “necessary” and “sufficient” conditions will be explicated; the consequences of not being able to justify “factual necessity” will be pursued and the moral drawn from it will be discussed. As more modern approaches in the philosophy of science we will be concerned with two kinds of confirmation theory that have been defended in the 20th century: verifiability and falsifiability. A very brief look into the idea "paradigm changes" will finish our part A. 

In part B of this course

we will look at different methodological approaches in the science of economics. As you all know: the understanding of what economics is, is much discussed (in particular recently). "Is economics an inductive/deductive, neither-nor science (because it applied confirmation theory)?" "Does/can economics put forward strict laws or just tendencies, does it use causal term, if so, on what grounds?" "Is economics a normative science?" Authors discussed will be:  Smith, Mill, Arrow, Knight, Friedman, Blaug, Hausman, Sen, Stiglitz, Piketty.

PART A: the philosophy of science part of this course 

1st intro + what is philosophy of science.  2nd session: (logic and the concept of entailment), 3rd: (empirical reasoning and the problem of induction), 4th: (John Stuart Mill on causation), 5th (Logical analysis and the principle of verifiability and The principle of falsifiability and the concept of ‚pseudo sciences’),

last session: MC test

PART B: The sessions before exam : discussion of your papers on the applied philosophy of science

Requirements and Assessment:

1. Weekly paper (4) 4x 15 points max. 60 points, turned in = 15 points 
2. 1 Paper: 90 points max.
3. MC exam (60 easy questions)  : 60 points max.

MC Test: max 60 points 

Excellent (1): 54 - 60 points
Good (2): 48 - 54 points
Satisfactory (3): 35 -  47 points
Sufficient (4): 22 - 34 points
Fail (5): <22

In total: max 210 points

Excellent (1): 200 - 210 points; 
Good (2): 175 - 198 points
Satisfactory (3): 140 - 173 points;
Sufficient (4): 115 - 138 points; 
Fail (5): <115