[L2] - Basics and Classics Flashcards
Realism vs. Constructionism
o Realism holds that there’s an objective truth out there that only has to be discovered [by passive observers].
o Constructionism emphasizes that the observers’ descriptions/investigation change the world (e.g., observer effects - which exist even in quantum mechanics) - i.e., - Did people stress before we defined what stress was? Does the way we treat stress in the modern day (i.e., mindfulness) change how the phenomenon manifests? - [to what extent do we CREATE the phenomena we measure in psychology/the social sciences - power of definitions]
What does Schrodinger’s cat tell us?
There is no way to achieve a result without measuring, but by measuring you create/determine the result.
Plato and his cave - and other questions on whether the moon is really there when we look away.
Prisoners trapped in the cave can’t understand the world outside of The Cave and therefore the world outside of The Cave does not exist to them; but that does not make the world outside of The Cave less real.
Another version of this same problem is the moon question - what they both are asking is how we can be sure that the world AS PERCEIVED is the world AS IT IS.
Descartes’ version – Evil daemon creates an illusion of the world which is what we live in – but he later refuted this problem because he “proved” the existence of God.
Hilary Putnam’s – Brain in a vat perspective, the brain is in a vat being fed reality by a supercomputer (a computer simulation) – 1982.
Another modern reflection could be the Matrix films – how does Neo deal with the reality that his world is an illusion, that all realities are/could be.
A buddhist monk dreams that he is a butterfly, and then questions whether he is a monk who dreamed he was a butterfly or a butterfly now dreaming that he is a monk.
We are forever plagued by the question as to how we know what scientific knowledge is reliable, and what knowledge is not?
Scientific Realism versus. Instrumentalism/Pragmatism
Scientific Realism: Objects and properties of an accepted scientific theory exist INDEPENDENTLY of our thought and perception. A theory is true if (and only if) it corresponds with that reality.
[Implications: successful and confirmed theories (particularly their unobservable entities) correspond directly to what the world is really like]
Instrumentalism/Pragmatism: Objects and properties of an accepted scientific theory are INSTRUMENTS TO CORRELATE AND PREDICT the results of observation and experiment.
(e.g., is it true that 10% of the population fill the criteria for MDD? There may be measurement error/uncertainty, but we should be able to give something of an answer – but in the past the definition was very different and its prevalence was much lower)
[Implications: even if theories are successful and confirmed, they are essentially just scientists’ TOOLS to do their work and do not need to correspond to or approximate what the world is really like.]
Metaphysical (transcending physical matter/laws of nature by thinking about reality) Realism versus. Idealism
Realism: The outside world exists independently of human thought and perception [Tim]
Idealism: The outside world is in some way dependent on the conscious activity (“ideas”) of humans [Storm - somewhat]
Instrumentalism vs. Constructionism on who dictates truth
Instrumentalism emphasizes that individuals sometimes make decisions that dictate truth.
Constructionism emphasizes that institutions sometimes make decisions that dictate truth.
Arguments For and Against Realism - Putnam vs. van Fraasen
Putnam’s argument for realism was that it is the only philosophy that doesn’t make the success of science a miracle (the NO MIRACLE argument). The theories accepted in a mature science are typically approximately true - and are viewed by scientific realists as a part of the only scientific explanation of the successes of science (this argument has a grain of truth but is somewhat trivial, and not supported by science’s history)
van Fraasen argument against Realism - I claim that the success of scientific theories is no miracle and is not even surprising to the scientific [Darwinian] mind – because any scientific theory is born into a life of fierce competition and only the successful theories survive (Chalmers - only the fittest theories survive)
Historical evidence shows us that successful theories have often been later shown to be wrong, like phlogiston theory of combustion or Newton’s particle theory of light.
Why should we care about theoretical stances?
We care because the theoretical stance of researchers will influence their decisions in actual research. For example, if researchers are convinced that mental disorders really are brain disorders, they will proceed in a different manner to find the “true essence” (i.e., Truth Maximization). By contrast, with an instrumentalist/pragmatic view (more common) you might consider mental disorder classifications to be instruments that primarily help research and people - and hence you will be guided by these interests (i.e., Utility Maximization).
A pragmatist would not deny that people have mental difficulties, but would question whether the rise in the rates of a disorder might be because of the ways in which such problems are labeled and verbalized in the present day (cultural influence).
Induction as a mode of reasoning/way of justifying scientific knowledge
Bottom to Top.
Observations –> Inference/General statement –> Problems with your theory/inference.
[Moving from observations to generalizations - it provides new information but doesn’t generate truth]
Example - Life, Human, Behavioral & Social Sciences.
Deduction as a mode of reasoning/way of justifying scientific knowledge
Top to Bottom.
Law –> Situation/practical example –> Inference –> Problem –> Problem.
[Moving from generalization to prediction - Preserves truth, but does not generate new information. It is a rare approach]
[e.g., the Muller-Lyer illusion differs across cultures – even our perceptual systems differ based on environment!]
Example - (Basic) Natural Sciences
Abduction as a mode of reasoning/way of justifying scientific knowledge
Inference to the Best Explanation/IBE (the detective approach)
Observation –> Observation –> Observation –> Inference.
The problem with this approach is that it is highly dependent on background knowledge and available observations – one additional observation can change the meaning of another!
The deductive approach typically adds less new information, and is less relevant to psychology because there are less reliable scientific laws in the social sciences (it is most common in physics)
[Looking for best explanations - Generates new information, but crucially depends on knowledge and information]
Example - Real Life & Law
Who were the Vienna Circle and what was their focus?
They were a group of physicists and philosophers (Schlick, Carnap, Neurath) who pioneered logical positivism - with Neurath focusing on its relevance to the demarcation problem.
From a (logical) positivism perspective, the demarcation criterion of scientific statements is their verifiability. That is, statements are scientific (and have meaning) if we can clearly state THE CONDITIONS under which they can be proven true. Their method of choice was a combination of pure observation statements with a logic of induction.
Describe positivism
Positivism means taking that which we observe at face value.
If something cannot be tested, then questioning it is meaningless.
Statements only have meaning if it makes some testable difference whether they are true or false.
Positivists oppose metaphysics - as it makes absolutely no difference for experience whether we postulate something else existing behind the empirical world or not; metaphysical realism cannot therefore be actually tested or verified.
From this perspective, we can only speculate/not solve the question about the moon and therefore it is pointless and non-scientific.
Issues with Positivism
- Only singular statements (e.g. “This swan is white.”), but no general statements (e.g. “All swans are white.”) can be verified [which is a problem of inductivism more generally]
- Scientific observations do depend on theories, boundary conditions etc.; not just a naïve understanding of “observation” or “experience”.
- Scientists often refer to unobservable components in their theories long before it is clear how such statements should be confirmed; and they do so successfully!
Popper’s criticisms of the Vienna Circle and the rise of Falsificationism
Popper (a cognitive/clinical psychologist) criticized the Vienna circle (and separately inductivism) – said we can only approach truth.
