Concepts of Philosophy of Science Flashcards
Functionalism / Functionalist explanations
A functional explanation of a phenomenon points out the function (or goal) of such a phenomenon as the explanation of its occurrence. Many biological explanations are functional in this sense. For example: why do flowers have a nice flagrance? Because, in this way, they attract insects which are needed to spread their pollen. The function of sweet smell is pointed out in order to explain the occurrence of such flagrance. However, such an explanation does not explain how flagrance is caused. Functional explanations are only powerful if combined with the description of a causal feedback mechanism that shows how the phenomenon with this particular function is caused. The flagrance of flowers is caused by their genetic properties which are caused by a complicated evolutionary process.
Related concepts:
Causal feedback mechanism Methodological collectivism and ontological holism
Conventions
Conventions are solutions to so called coordination problems, i.e situations in which individuals have to coordinate their behaviour in order to attain an optimal result (On which side of the road will we drive? Where will we meet for a talk?). What is particular of these problems, is that it does not matter what choice is being made by the parties, as long as they make the same choice (choose the same place to meet) or a choice that is coordinated. Making an optimal choice can lead to the emergence of mutual expectations (the next time we need to meet, we will go to the same place). Such mutual expectations may result in conventions: ‘In this country we drive at the right side of the road’. Such conventions are obvious norms that are indispensable for the regulation of the interactions between individuals. They can be based on explicit agreements, but they are more often based on implicit mutual expectations.
Related concepts:
- Interdependency/ interdependent choice
- Sanctions
- Game theory
Confirmation
Confirmation involves the endorsement of a claim or theory by showing that such a claim or theory can be derived from a more general claim or theory (deduction) or by showing that the claim or theory can be explained by one or more particular claims, like observational claims (induction).
Related concepts:
- Deduction
- Empirical content
- Induction
Contrasting concept:
- Falsification
Individualism: methodological individualism and ontological individualism
Methodological individualism analyses phenomena by considering them as the result of properties, actions, and interactions of individual subjects (analysis at the micro level). Methodological individualism is generally based on ontological individualism which is the doctrine that there are no supra-individual entities like social structures, social meanings, organisational cultures, national characters or the will of a group. The explanation of supra-individual phenomena is, therefore, to be given by pointing out properties and (inter)actions of individual subjects.
Contrasting concept: Methodological collectivism and ontological holism
Organistic view
From an organistic point of view, organisations and collectives are to be regarded as organism having their own function, goal, and life cycle. In this view, collectives, like organisms, try to attain an equilibrium with their surroundings.
Related concepts:
- Functionalism / Functional explanations
- Methodological collectivism and ontological collectivism
- Systems explanations
Contrasting concepts:
- Individualism: methodological individualism and ontological individualism
Method / Methodology
Method derives from the Greek methodos, which means: the route or path followed. In our case: the route or path followed in the direction of an answer to a question or problem. A scientific method provides for the route the scientist follows to answer research questions. This can be the route of observation, conceptual analysis, normative argumentation, etc. Usually, more than one method is used, simultaneously or successively. Methodology is the theory or study (Greek: logos) of the use of methods.
Level of analysis
Scientific research in the social sciences can focus on different levels of aggregation: the level of the individual actor (micro level) and the level of the group, the company, the system, or the society (meso and macro level). In the first case, one examines the properties, actions and interactions of individuals and explains social phenomena as the result of these properties and (inter)actions. In the second case, one explains social phenomena (and individual properties and (inter)actions) by referring to other social facts, like the structure of a company, the culture within a group or the social meanings that are dominant in a society.
Related concepts:
- Individualism: methodological individualism individualism and ontological
- Perspective of the spectator (see Perspective of the participant and perspective of the spectator)
Contrasting concept:
- Nature of scientific research
Rational choice theory
Rational choice theory is a framework for understanding social and economic behaviour. It is the dominant theoretical paradigm in microeconomics. It is also central to modern political science. Rational choice theory depicts social institutions and social change as the result of the actions and interactions of rational subjects, i.e. subjects trying to maximise preference satisfaction. Rational choice theory depicts societies as cooperative enterprises in which people align their choice to the expected choices of others in order to obtain a win-win situation. Rational choice theory analyses human interaction at a micro level from a spectator’s view. It assumes particular motives and beliefs in every actor.
It assumes that:
- individuals always choose the best action according to stable preference functions and constraints facing them.
- individuals have full information about action options and outcomes
- individuals can perfectly calculate expected outcomes given different choices made by the interacting parties
Related concepts:
- Perfectly rational subjects
- Game theory
Normative relativism
According to normative relativism there are such deep differences between cultures with regard to worldview and values, and there is no universal norm, common truth, or overarching method to guide us in deciding which worldview or value is correct, that we cannot but respect such descriptive and normative differences. Respect and tolerance should, therefore, be the dominant norm. Normative relativism contradicts itself, however. If there is no common view or universal norm, then the prescription of tolerance is itself also a culture-dependent norm with no universal power of application.
Related concepts:
Descriptive relativism
Methodological relativism
Actor
An actor is an individual who acts on the basis of his/her own reasons or intentions. An actor is an intentional subject: a person who can give reasons for what he or she does. We can only understand those actions from a first-person point of view: we virtually have to become the actor. The interpretation of the actor’s behaviour can, thus, be found by regarding his intentions/reasons as the cause of his behaviour.
Related concepts:
- Understanding (See explaining and understanding)
- Perspective of the participant
Contrasting concepts:
- Agent
- Perspective of the spectator (see perspective of the participant and perspective of the spectator)
Conceptual analysis
Conceptual analysis explains concepts by analysing their meaning. This can be very easy: your sister in law is either the wife of one of your brothers or she sis the sister of your own wife. More often, however, conceptual analysis requires thorough research in which we meticulously examine and elucidate the precise meaning of a concept, like ‘profitability’, ‘net assets’, or ‘debtor’.
Related concepts:
- A priori knowledge
- Rationalism
Sanctions and free-riders
Game theory shows that in many situations of social interaction we may only attain an optimal result if we can threaten parties who are prone to defect (stop cooperation) with sanctions. The reason is that free riding is in many cases the dominant strategy: one enjoys the fruits of the cooperation, but refuses to contribute one’s own share. An entrepreneur can profit from the fact that others keep to a price-agreement by selling goods below the market. If all entrepreneurs were to sell their goods below the market, the price-cutting would soon no longer exist, but an individual entrepreneur may come of well by free-riding. A physician can free ride on the good reputation of his profession, without contributing anything to such a good reputation. In game theory, these kinds of situations are modelled as so- called Prisoner’s Dilemmas. Sanctions are meant to raise the costs of free-riding in such a way that potential free-riders choose to cooperate (and not to defect) out of sheer self-interest.
Related concepts:
Conventions
Rational choice theory
Game theory
Valid research methods
Research methods that are found trustworthy by the scientific community are valid research methods. Scientists and scholars are constantly debating the power and relevance of the research methods they use. In every discipline there are scholars who exclusively deal with ‘methodology’ (the study (from the Greek: logos) of methods). Even established methods are constantly questioned. If a method can withstand severe criticism, it is considered valid
Normal science
By coining the term ‘normal science’ Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996) referred to the situation in which scientific research occurs within an established epistemological, methodological, and ontological framework, guided by paradigmatic examples of scientific discoveries and theoretical breakthroughs, without any disturbance by strong anomalies.
Related concepts:
- Exemplar
- Paradigm
Contrasting concepts:
- Anomaly
- Scientific revolution
Induction / Inductive reasoning
Induction (or inductive reasoning) is a form of reasoning that makes generalisations based on individual instances. Formally, induction is the process of reasoning in which the premises of an argument are believed to support the conclusion but do not entail it, i.e. they do not ensure its truth. Inductive reasoning is used to ascribe properties or relations to types based on an observation instance (i.e., on a number of observations or experiences), or to formulate laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns. For example: after observing hundreds of trains of the Dutch Railways, we can inductively infer the claim that Dutch trains are mainly yellow.
Contrasting concept:
Deduction
Positivism
Positivism is an extreme form of empiricism. According to positivists, all claims that are not directly based on actual sensory perceptions are bogus. Authentic knowledge is knowledge solely based on what can be observed. Auguste Comte (1798-1857; widely regarded as the first sociologist) used the term ‘positivism’ to refer to a kind of philosophy that is exclusively based on ‘positive facts’ and which is to replace the old religious and metaphysical systems, making them obsolete. Comte was highly influential in some countries. Brazilian thinkers turned to his ideas about training a scientific elite in order to flourish in the industrialization process. Brazil’s national motto, Ordem e Progresso (“Order and Progress”) was taken from Comte’s positivism! In the early twentieth century, logical positivism–a stricter and more logical version of Comte’s basic thesis- sprang up in Vienna and grew to become one of the dominant movements in analytical philosophy. Adherents to the Vienna Circle (Wiener Kreis) argued that any method of gaining knowledge should be limited to natural, physical, and material approaches.
Related concept: Empiricism
Paradigm / Extended paradigm
Within what Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996) calls normal science, the paradigm is the set of exemplary experiments or other scientific achievements that are likely to be copied or emulated (the Greek paradeigma is composite #rom para- and the verb deixnumi, ‘to show’, as a whole -roughly- meaning ‘example). The prevailing paradigm often represents a specific way of Viewing reality, or a specific method that opens new ways of doing research, but also sets limitations on acceptable programs for future research. An extended paradigm is the set of exemplary scientific achievements together with fundamental theories, other exemplars, shared epistemological and ontological assumptions, and shared methodological views and approaches. An extended paradigm (like the current standard model in physics) functions as the philosophical and theoretical framework of a scientific school or discipline within which theories, laws, generalizations, and the experiments performed in support of them, are formulated. In a very broad sense, paradigm has gained the meaning of a philosophical or theoretical framework of any kind. One important aspect of Kuhn’s extended paradigms is that such paradigms are incommensurable, which means that two paradigms cannot be compared to each other. A new extended paradigm that replaces an old extended paradigm is not necessarily better, because the criteria of judgement depend on the paradigm.
Related concepts:
Exemplar
Normal science
Scientific revolution
Causal feedback mechanism
A causal feedback mechanism is a causal chain which explains why a phenomenon can fulfil the function which functionalists point out as an explanation of that phenomenon. For instance: why do giraffes have such long necks? A functional explanation will point out the advantage it gives the giraffe (being able to eat from high trees). Such an explanation does not reveal anything about the causes of such a long neck. Such causes have to be found in the giraffes genes. The causes of the design of these genes are to be found in evolutionary history.
Related concept:
- Functionalism/Functional explanations
Enlightenment
Enlightenment (Aufklärung) is the revolution in Western thought since the middle of the seventeenth century that proclaimed reasons (rationalism) and experience (empiricism) as the sole sources of knowledge of reality. Enlightenment thought was mainly propagated by circles of more or less like-minded intellectuals in Scotland, France and Germany in the eighteenth century. Those intellectuals were allied in their struggle against social biases and traditional authorities. They propagated rational reflection instead of custom, religious belief, or tradition. ‘Sapere aude! Have the courage to think for yourself!’was the Enlightenment’s slogan, introduced by Immanuel Kant.
Related concepts:
Empiricism
Rules, rule following behaviour, and regular behaviour
The reasons people give for their actions always take the form of a rule, e.g. ‘I am going to that restaurant, because if you want to have good food you had better go to an authentic Vietnamese restaurant’. A general rule is presented as the reason for one’s choice. If people refer to such rules in justifying their actions, they show that they are guided by that rule. If somebody only by coincidence always visits authentic Vietnamese restaurants, then this person’s actions show a particular regularity, but he or she is not guided by the rule that in order to have good food, one should go to authentic Vietnamese restaurants. Rule following behaviour is characterised by the fact that the actor is conscious of a rule/ reason and intentionally aligns his behaviour according to what the rule prescribes. Regular behaviour follows a particular fixed pattern but is not characterised by the fact that the actor is intentionally aligning his behaviour to that pattern.
Related concepts:
- Hermeneutics
- Norms, normativity, and fallibility
- Social meanings theory
Analytical claims/Analytical knowledge
An analytical claim is a statement of which is the truth value is fixed by the concepts used in such a statement. For instance, ‘All bachelors are unmarried’ or ‘2+6=8’ are analytical statements. Analytical knowledge is knowledge we can obtain without examining reality around us by simply analysing the concepts used in expressing belief. A lot of mathematical knowledge is analytical in nature, because many mathematical proofs consist of unpacking the meaning of mathematical knowledge that is not analytical, because it is not directly implied by the meaning of axioms and concepts. Such knowledge is based on complicated proofs and ingenious deduction, and is best characterised as a priori synthetical knowledge.
Related concepts:
- A priori knowledge
- Rationalism
Contrasting concepts:
- A posteriori knowledge
- Synthetical claims/synthetical knowledge
Methodological collectivism and ontological holism
Methodological holism examines individual behaviour and social phenomena by unraveling the influence of supra-individual mechanisms and social meanings at the meso-level (middle level) and macro-level. The unit of research is not the individual subject, but the collective. The approach of methodological holism is generally based on ontological holism, which is the doctrine that individual phenomena are determined by the whole of which they are part. The whole is more than the sum of its parts and is, therefore, dominating the character and behaviour of the parts. Starting from this ontological assumption, methodological collectivism examines in what sense the structure, the ideas, or the goals of the collective influence individual behaviour and what mechanisms such an influence consists of.
Related concept:
Level of analysis
Contrasting concept:
Individualism: methodological individualism and ontological individualism
The nature of scientific research
Social scientific research can take two forms: (1) it may search for the causes of a social phenomenon or the behaviour of individuals, and (2) it may search for the reasons people have for their acts. The second form of research is hermeneutical: we try to understand behaviour from the perspective of the actor. The first form of research explains behaviour by revealing its psychological or biological causes, or by assuming certain motives and reasons of the actor. Related concepts: Perspective of the participant and perspective of the spectator Hermeneutics Explanation and Understanding (Erklären - Verstehen) Contrasting concept: Level of analysis
Falsifiability
The falsifiability of a theory is its capability of being scrutinised and falsified. According to Karl Popper (1902-1994), non-scientific knowledge, for instance, is not falsifiable, because it makes claims which can never be false (which is not interesting) or which are so general, void of substance, vague, or opaque, that they cannot seriously be tested. Falsifiable knowledge is always much richer in empirical content.
Related concepts:
Empirical content
Falsification
Contrasting concept:
Confirmation
Expected utility
The expected utility of an option is the utility of that option, expressed in some number, multiplied with the chance that the choice will have the expected outcome. If the utility of a choice has an expected outcome that has a score of 6 on a scale of 1 to 10, and the probability that this outcome will be realised is 70%, then the expected utility is 6 * 0.7 = 4.2 on a scale of 1 to 10.
Related concepts:
Rational choice theory
Game theory
Pareto optimal / Pareto optimal choices
Given a set of alternative allocations of goods for a set of individuals, or outcomes of interdependent choices in social interactions as modelled by game theory, a movement from one allocation to another that can make at least one individual better off without making any other individual worse off is called a Pareto improvement. An allocation is Pareto optimal when no further Pareto improvements can be made. If it is possible for one party to be made better off (e.g. by getting a higher income or higher payoff), without any of the parties being made worse off, the situation is Pareto suboptimal: Pareto improvement is possible. The idea of Pareto optimality is called after its inventor, the Italian economist Vilfredo Frederico Damaso Pareto (1848-1923)
Related concepts:
Interdependent / Interdependent choices
Game theory
