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
What is Denying the Consequence?
Modus tollens; If A, then B; Not B; Therefore not A; logically valid
What is Affirming the Consequent?
Modus ponens; If A, then B; B; Therefore A; logically invalid
What is Denying the Antecedents?
If A then B; Not A; Therefore not B; logically invalid
What is a Synthetic Statement?
Truth of a statement depends on matters of fact; mode of verification is observation (empirical truth)
What is an Analytical Statement?
Things that we know are true without observation, we know they’re true through analysis; Method of verification: Logical analysis (logical truth)
What is the Intension of a Concept?
Theoretical meaning; the conjunction of general properties that together define a concept
What is the Extension of a Concept?
Empirical meaning; the set of all (real-life) phenomena that the concept refers to
What’s theoretical concepts?
Theoretical concepts can’t be reduced by logic; e.g. force in physics
- Intension
- Extension
What is a Reflective Concept?
For latent (not directly observable) concepts we try a lot of alternative measurement; can’t see the concept but we can see the symptoms
What is a Formative Concept?
The properties actually make up the concept
What’s empiricism?
All knowledge is based on observation
Empirical content of statements: How much the theory says about the world
What is metaphysics?
Knowledge we can’t verify through observation
God, religion
What does the Quine-Duhem thesis say?
We never test a single hyptohesis but always a whole system of hypotheses that together constitute theoretical or conceptual framework; we can never know which theory is actually wrong, or our observation might be wrong
What is Truth-likeliness?
How many generally true statements are in a theory, how close the theory itself is to truth; if its really high⇒likely theory won’t say much
What is the difference between Observational and Theoretical language?
Observational language only contains logical and observational elements
Theoretical language contains logical and theoretical statements and rules of correspondence
What is Revolutionary science?
Change of paradigms, revolutionary growth of knowledge, using different method to solve puzzle
What is a Searchlight theory?
Our preconceptions that guide our research; concepts guide us what to look for
Can positive science exist?
No because we can’t prove everything with synthetic and analytical statements; there will always be theory that can’t be proved nor falsified
What is Consensus theory of truth?
Sometimes we don’t know, we just have a consensus (paradigm) ⇒we believe it until there’s an anomaly
What is Pragmatic theory of truth?
Truth sometimes depends on pragmatic considerations ⇒ we know something isn’t true but we keep it until we know better
What is the Unity of Science Ideal?
All fields of science are related; in the middle there’s logic and everything builds on that and previous observations from other fields; everything can be reduced to fundamental physics
Logical positivism
Only statements verifiable through direct observation or logical proof are meaningful in terms of conveying truth value, information or factual content
Uses analytical and synthetic statements; needs logical reductibility
Thinking is the base of all knowledge; the criterion of truth is intellectual and deductive
What does Critical Rationalism say?
Pure science is trying to falsify claims and ideas ⇒ if theory passes all attempts to falsify it, then it can gain the attribute of trustworthiness
Linguistic turn
Logic can structure observations non-metaphysically; logic only way to structure knowledge
What is the Requirement of Logical Reductibility?
For a statement to be true you should be able to use logic to go back to the observatory experience
