Chapter 2: Paradigms, observations and theoretical knowledge Flashcards
Positivism
Introduced by Auguste Comte in the 20th century. It is a way of thinking about science and society
He wanted social science to be based on positive facts (events, observable phenoma)
Positive social science should replace metaphysics where Church plays a central role in education, politics…
Only empirical (observation) and descriptive knowledge count as scientific knowledge
Extreme form of empiricism
Rationalism
Kant in rationalism
He discovered that our thinking is somehow preformed
Certain categories give chance to conceptualise, understand reality.
A priori knowledge of the world exists
By thinking about the way things can be observed, they can be understood as causation. However, causality cannot be observed
Problem of induction
Assumes that everything will be the same in the future as in the past
Idea that only empirical data counts for good reasons result in fundamental problem undermining any form of empiricism or positivism
It implies that out of a limited set of observations we can never with full certainty, deduce a general principle or law
The greater the number of observations, the more likely it is that the law is correct
What’s deduction?
Formation of a conclusion based on generally accepted statements or facts; truth preserving
When someone deduces specific conclusion out of general claims or laws (opposite of induction)
Syllogism
Argument logically valid if
Major premise: All X is Y (all ravens are black)
Minor premise: P is an X (P is a raven)
Conclusion: P is black
What’s induction?
We look at all available cases of X and draw conclusions based on that; generalisation; truth value can be changed
Deriving general claims from specific observations
Correspondence model of truth
A claim is true when it correspond with reality but truthfulness of claims has to be tested and measured
Observable concepts: Concepts that can be observed and measured
Theoretical concepts: Network of complex phenomena and cannot be measured easily
Problem: No clear connection between phenomena observed and studied
So to be a good concept, a concept has to have:
- Robustness: It should fit into more than one context
- Fit: Claims made by the concept must fit into a more general theory
- Predictability: Predictions about occurrence of the phenomenon must be made
Coherency theory of truth
Multitude of reason-giving consideration contributing to the assurance of truth of a particular claim.
Coherence: Function of cohesion and mutual support
In this model, claims support by observations and other arguments about how core concepts in the claim should be understood and operationalised. Claim supported by other reasons like predictability
It gives a partial answer to the induction problem
It helps avoid induction problem as it searches for other reasons outside of the range of observations to give extra support to general claims
For this model, no significant difference between analytic and synthetic claims
What is the hypothetical-deductive method (empirical cycle)?
Standard model of science
More broader and process-oriented than the coherence model, it combines phases of induction and deduction in an empirical cycle
Observation⇒Induction⇒Theory development⇒developing new hypothesis⇒testing hypothesis
What was Popper’s criticism of logical positivism
He said that problem of induction isn’t addressed by coherence model or standard model, it does not result from limited number of observations
For him, observations… might guide us the wrong way
The higher the certainty of a claim, the lower the content of a claim
For Popper, purpose of science is to falsify claims and theories, so scientists should focus on falsification rather than confirmation
If theory passes all attempts to falsify it, it can get the attribute of trustworthiness
Leads to tunnel vision, problem of induction not addressed, research infected with theory
What is Falsification?
Popper thought that true science is coming up with a theory and trying to falsify it
Scientific knowledge distinguished from non-scientific knowledge by falsifiability and not reliability
Scientific knowledge can be tested, reviewed, falsified
Non-scientific knowledge cannot be falsifiable because it expresses claims that cannot be untrue (tautologies)
Observations cannot falsify a claim (they might be wrong)
Thomas Kuhn
A paradigm
He introduced the paradigm theory and said that the process experiences periods of revolution and consolidation
He discovered that periods of steady growth are alternated by radical revolutions
First there are multiple schools, then Huge scientific achievement, functioning as a standard example: a paradigm; paradigm is a basis for all knowledge in a field
Paradigm will include:
- Fundamental theories: That all scientists agree to (BBT)
- More breakthroughs like the paradigm itself which will function as standard examples (exemplars) for new theories
- Shared scientific values (openness and transparency)
- Shared methodological regulations
Normal science
When scientists agree with the paradigm on the problems, ways of conducting research and recognition of scientific results
Science within the boundaries of the given paradigm, progressive growth of knowledge
When normal science occurs:
- More problem solved
- Steady growth of scientific knowledge
Normal science has clears standards about what science is and they will not be discussed.
Scientists don’t try to falsify claims; they accept them as true
Anomaly
Very different occurrence than what would be expected based on the accepted theory
It caused many anomalies to disappear without replacing Newton’s theory but existed alongside.
Idea of one unique theory became outdated because each theory has its own advantages and disadvantages.
This was in contrast with ideas of Kuhn who assumed that different paradigms are mutually exclusive
Phlogiston theory
When something is burning, substance like phlogiston is released and absorbed by the air. It was the first paradigm in chemistry and it was a very powerful theory
What does true preservation mean?
with a logically valid argument, true premises always lead to true conclusions
What is a logically valid argument?
An argument is valid if it makes it impossible to be false with true premises
