Ch.11 Flashcards
Science and not science
Science is a way of searching for the truth through the formulation, testing, and evaluation of theories.
•Technology is the production of products, not a search for the truth.
•Science cannot be identified with any particular worldview or ideology.
-Some people think science is objectionably materialistic and deterministic.
•Science is not scientism, the view that science is the only reliable way to acquire knowledge.
-“Science is the only reliable way to knowledge.” How would you prove that scientifically? It’s not an empirical claim.
The scientific method
1) Identify the problem or per pose a question.
-This is where human choice enters the process.
2) Devise a hypothesis to explain the event or phenomenon.
3) Devise a test implication or prediction.
4) Perform the test.
5) Accept or reject the Hypothesis.
Deriving test implications
•Test implication: an Observational consequence that would follow if it given hypothesis were true.
•Test implications are used for a hypothesis cannot be tested directly.
•Note: no hypothesis is ever conclusively confirmed or confuted. 
The logic of scientific thinking (Diagram)
- If H, then C.
- Not-C.
- Therefore, not-H.
(Hypothesis disconfirmed)
Modus tollens(denying the consequence), valid - If H, then C.
- C.
- Therefore, H.
(Hypothesis confirmed)
Affirming the consequence, invalid 
-Science proceeds based on induction.
-If hypothesis fits with the data many times, more likely to be true.
-But not guaranteed to be true.
-Popperians only go for disconfirmation.
-But disconfirmation isn’t conclusive either, can always save a theory by making changes to it.

Sample Hypothesis:
High doses of vitamin C can increase the survival time of people with terminal cancer.
•Test implication: terminal cancer patient given high doses of vitamin C would live longer than patients who didn’t.
•Experimental group: patient given vitamin C treatment.
•Control group: patient treated with an in active placebo.
•Double-blind study: neither patience nor experimenters know who receives the real treatment.
•Seek replication: have other scientists repeat the experiment to see if the results hold up. 
Judging scientific theories:
The criteria of adequacy
•Testability: weather there is someway to determine if a theory is true.
•Fruitfulness: the number of novel predictions made.
•Scope: the amount of diverse phenomena explained.
•Simplicity: the number of assumptions made.
•Conservatism: how well a theory fits with existing knowledge. 
Copernicus vs Ptolemy
•Ptolemy(127-148 CE)- Egyptian astronomer.
-saw Aristotle‘s astronomical system didn’t fit with observation.
-Modified the geocentric system, made it far more complex, but yielded accurate predictions.
•Ptolemy’s System was more conservative than Aristotle’s, it fit better with background information of the time, observation.
•But it was so complex. Copernicus Suggested heliocentric system that was far simpler.
•Yeah both systems were just as successful in terms of scope.
•and the copernican system seemed to conflict with observational data.
•Eventually, with the advent of better telescopes, these confliction’s were resolved.
Evolutionarily theory and young earth creationism (Not religious belief or theism in general)
•Both theories are testable.
-Evolution: predicts that humans and primates will be similar, that bacteria will become resistant to antibiotics, the layers of the fossil record, the emergence of new diseases, etc.
-Creationism: the earth is only a few thousand years old, there was a worldwide flood, that all species were create at the at the same time, and that species change very little overtime. 
•But evolutionarily theory is more fruitful, simple, conservative, and has graders scope.
-creationism assumes the existence of a creator and unknown forces.
-Has not used any novel predictions that have been substantiated.
-Creationism struggles to explain why the earth seem so ancient and how are the creator would have done these things.
-The worldwide flood theory conflicts with established background evidence and so it’s not conservative.
•Note that rejecting (young earth) creationism doesn’t necessarily mean rejecting the belief that God created the world and created human beings through evolution.
Science and weird theories
•Science has always been interested in the mysterious, and has investigated many weird phenomena like clairvoyance and telekinesis.
•Weird theories are widely believed, often difficult to ignore, and sometimes true.
•Assessing weird theories requires careful critical thinking. 
Common mistakes in assessing weird theories
•Believing a phenomenon must be paranormal one, if natural explanation is not yet available.
•Thinking that just because something seems real, it is.
•Misunderstanding logical possibility and physical possibility.
•Believing that if something is logically possible, it must be actual.
The test formula
Step 1: State the (T)heory and check for consistency.
Step 2: Assess the (E)vidence for the theory.
Step 3: (S)crutinize alternative theories.
Step 4: (T)est the theories with the criteria of adequacy.
Two weird theories: crop circles and psychics
•Where theories should be evaluated with the TEST formula.
•The theory attributing crop circles to humans is more fruitful, simple, conservative, and has greater scope than the alternative.
•The theory attributing the performance of psychics to cold reading is more simple, conservative, and has greater scope then it’s alternatives.
—Crop Circles
Criteria Vortices Aliens Humans
Testable Yes Yes Yes
Fruitful No No Yes
Scope No No Yes
Simple No No Yes
Conservative No No Yes
—Talking With The Dead
Criteria Theory 1 Theory 2
(Spiritualism) (Cold Reading)
Testable Yes Yes
Fruitful No No
Scope No Yes
Simple No Yes
Conservative No Yes
