In this episode I look at an important aspect of the history of science, namely the occurrence of scientific revolutions. I start with a brief history of the Scientific Revolution (1543-1687), discussing the contributions of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and Newton. Their achievements suggest some useful criteria, which help to understand what a scientific revolution is. I look at Kuhn's work on scientific revolutions but, for the reasons explained, give preference to an alternative model (the chain-of-reasoning model). I proceed to test this model with respect to Darwinism and Freudianism.

Darwin passes the test: he was the author of a true scientific revolution. Although Freud claimed that he had completed the Copernican revolution, he does not pass the test.

The work of all three of them - Copernicus, Darwin and Freud - had important consequences for the way humans look at the world. The consequence of the Copernican revolution was that humans could no longer see themselves as the centre of the universe. The consequence of the Darwinian revolution was that humans could no longer see themselves as the crown of creation. Freud did not instigate a scientific revolution but his work had a massive impact on Western culture. He 'created' homo psychologicus - the psychological human.

Literature:

The classic studies of scientific revolutions are Th. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1970) and I. B. Cohen, Revolution in Science (1985). This episode is based on my book Copernicus, Darwin & Freud (2009). Further literature on shepherd.com.

In this episode my aim is a comparison of the natural and the social sciences.

The material in this episode is based on Friedel Weinert, Copernicus, Darwin & Freud: Revolutions in the History and Philosophy of Science (2009). A nice introduction to the philosophy of the social sciences is Peter T. Manicas, A Realist Philosophy of Social Science: Explanation and Understanding (2006).

Given the enormous prestige of science, the temptation to call a discipline 'scientific' is understandable; astrology, creationism, Marxism and even psychoanalysis are examples. But how do we distinguish genuine science from pseudo-science? After having defined 'knowledge' I aim to answer this question by proposing some criteria, which should help to draw a line. Traditionally, it was thought that scientific knowledge consists in generalising from the observation of some cases ('some swans') to all cases ('all swans'). This method is called induction. We use inductive reasoning abundantly in our daily lives. Unfortunately, it sometimes fails and it does not do a proper job of distinguishing science from pseudo-science. A better way is the rigorous testing of hypotheses. This method is called testability (or falsifiability). When this method is employed in case studies, astrology and Freudian psychoanalysis do not pass the test. As long as a theory is testable (by experiments, observations) it is scientific, even if it fails the tests.

Literature:

If you do not want to read Karl Popper's classic book The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1959), you may want to look at Popper's Unended Quest (1976). I discuss this material (and case studies) in my book Copernicus, Darwin and Freud: Revolutions in the History and Philosophy of Science (2009). Almost all Introductions to Philosophy of Science will discuss this topic (see suggested books in Episode 6).

In this episode, I describe and explain what history and philosophy of science is all about. I like to compare science to a workshop with lots of tools for scientists to understand the natural and the social world. There is of course a lot of mathematics, especially in the hard sciences and economics. They employ theories and models. Scientists also use tools such as explanations, predictions, the laws of nature, theory testing, time and scientific revolutions etc.. But they leave it to philosophers to clarify the use of these tools. Science is a human activity, which has had a massive impact on civilisation. Questions about the character of science naturally arise. It is the job of the history and philosophy of science to provide answers to these questions.

Literature:

There are numerous introductions to the philosophy of science; why not start with Samir Okasha: A Very Short Introduction (2016), K. W. Staley, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science ((2014) or Anthony O'Hear, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (1989)?

In this episode I discuss the distinction between open and closed societies. Although this distinction dates back to the beginning of the 20th century, it is as topical today as it was 100 years ago. The rise of populism and the impact of social media have made a discussion of this distinction urgent again. And there are still numerous countries around the world, which we would regard as closed. So what is an open, as opposed to a closed society? By which criteria should we call a society 'open' or 'closed'? To address these questions, I consider influential ideas of sociologist and philosophers.

Literature:

-K. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies (1957, 2 volumes)

-F. von Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (1944/2014)

-A. Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity (1991)

-J. Habermas, Postmetaphysical Thinking (1992)

-F. Weinert, ‘The Open Society Revisited’, in: Social Sciences  2025, 14 (3), 118; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14030118

In this episode I concentrate on the notion of social or distributive justice. That is the question of how the social benefits and burdens are to be distributed amongst citizens in a given society. It is one of the fundamental principles which every society must address. The question already occupied the Greeks but I will focus on some modern views. These views attribute to the State various degrees of involvement in the settlement of social justice. I will discuss Nozick's minimal account, John Rawls's account of justice as fairness, Amartya Sen's capability approach and finally egalitarian, in particular, Marxist views of social justice.

Literature:

- R. Nozick, Anarchy, State & Utopia (1974) defends a minimal involvement of the state.

-J. Rawls, A Theory of Justice (1971) introduces the idea that justice is fairness, which is based on two fundamental principles.

-A. Sen, The Idea of Justice (2009) provides some fair criticism of Rawls and introduces an alternative approach

-M. Walzer, Spheres of Justice (1983)

In this episode I discuss freedom in a political sense, especially republican freedom. This notion was already discussed in antiquity: I begin with a quote from Cicero. But the focus is on republican freedom from the Age of Enlightenment to the present day. I look at the compatibility or incompatibility of republicanism with monarchy and distinguish republican freedom from more liberal views of freedom. I conclude with the question of civil disobedience with reference to the surprisingly modern views of

Literature:

The classic text on Republicanism is Thomas Paine: The Rights of Man (1791/2012).

Modern defences of republicanism are: Philip Petit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government (1997); F. Lovett, A General Theory of Domination and Justice (2010).

In this episode I address the question of the nature of power. A philosophical enquiry demands answers to a number of questions: How should power be characterised? Who possesses power? And under what circumstances can they resist power?

The question can be addressed from various perspectives. I discuss Nietzsche's 'will to power', Foucault's micro-conception of power and Weber's sociological account of power. A consideration of power includes an answer to the question why people tend to comply with power.

Literature:

Steven Lukes, Power (2005).

In this Episode, I define Political Philosophy as an 'investigation into the nature, causes and effects of good and bad government.' I explain what this means and argue that we need Political Philosophy because it constructs conceptual models of fundamental notions - democracy, fairness, freedom, justice - which influence the laws, rules and regulations in society. I characterise conceptual models of networks of interconnected ideas and concepts. Examples follow in the next few episodes on power, freedom, social justice, open and closed societies.

Literature:

I found the following books to be good, helpful introductions to political philosophy:

- Alan Haworth, Understanding the Political Philosophers: From Ancient to Modern Times (2003

- David Miller, Political Philosophy. A Very Short Introduction (2003)

- Jonathan Wolff, An Introduction to Political Philosophy (2022)

With books, it is often a question of taste, i.e. whether you like the style of the author.

In these podcasts I will concentrate on some topical issues in Political Philosophy, and later in the History and Philosophy of Science. Broadly speaking, Political Philosophy is a social science. So there is a natural transition from issues in Political Philosophy to topics in the Philosophy of Science.

The Introduction explains my approach to philosophy. It focuses on philosophical problems - I give some typical examples - and attempts to solve them, rather than on the ideas of the 'great thinkers'. In fact, I follow Karl Popper who described this approach as 'situational logic'. It is an assessment of respective problem situations: an analysis of the problems and attempts to solve them. (You can learn more about this approach from my intellectual biography of Karl Popper - Professional Philosopher and Public Intellectual. Springer 2022)

Episode 1 addresses three questions: What is Political Philosophy (in contrast to Political Science)? Why do we need Political Philosophy and which purpose do its findings serve.

In the following episodes I first turn to some other problems in Political Philosophy, as the description of each episode shows.

In later episodes, I will turn to some selected problems in the Philosophy of Science, and then alternate between Political Philosophy and Philosophy of Science.

Literature: Generally, you will find articles on all the topics I discuss on either the scholarly Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or the more accessible Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.