lecture 12 Flashcards
the deductive-nomological account of explanation
the validity of the deductive nomological explanation depends on logical argument, and is thus independent of a physical understanding of causality
Law: in a free market supply and demadn will constantly adjust
Fact: demand for taxis is high
Expected effect: the offer for taxis will also rise (i.e. the taxi drivers will work longer hours)
The deductive-nomological account of explanation a problem
The premises constituting the argument need to possess empirical content in order for the explanation to mean something in the world
–> taxi drivers behavior does not conform to the law of supply and demand
Psychologists use two general tendencies to explain the taxi drivers particular behavior:
loss aversion: People tend to avoid losses more than they tend to maximize gains
One decision at a time: people dont process multiple possibilities in parallel, but only follow through the consequences of one
causal conception of explanation a closer look
successful explanations refer to causes
Explanations are causal accounts aimed at identifying the factors, structures or mechanisms that bring out the phenomenon to be explained.
Remember - causal explanations are asymmetric
E.g. how does one get high?
THC acts on specific brain cell receptors that ordinarily react to THC like chemicals produced by the brain
Assuming THC over-activates parts of the brain that contain the greater number of these receptors. this causes the “high” one feels
Causal conception of explanation problems
controversial what causes are (recall previous lecture)
Phenomena often have many causes (and many consequences), and it is sometimes contentious which cause(s) are the most relevant to explaining a phenomenon
Example: differences between countries in how the causes of death during the Covid-19 pandemic were determines
the cumulative picture of scientific change
Textbook-picture of science
View that many scientistis have of their discipline
Problem: historians of science started saying “it did not happen that way”
Cone shaped with boundries of science, anything outside is not science
what is a scientific revolution
a radical change of a reigning scientific paradigme being overturned in favor of a new paradigm (i.e. a new way of doing things)
Change in our image of reality
How data are collected, analyzed, interpreted
Which logic/methods are accepted
Who/what counts as scientific expert and scientific institution
The structure of scientific revolution (1962)
Pre-paradigmatic inquiry –> competing paradigms –> supremacy of one paradigm ->
Crisis (anomalies become normalized -> new paradigm)
Collection of a lot of facts
Difficult to distinguish relevant and irrelevant facts
No agreement on what counts as “basic knowledge”
No agreement of who are the experts
A paradigm starts as a promise and grows “normal science”
Researchers all move within (more or less) the same conceptual frameworks
The framework defines which problems are interesting and which are left out
anomalies
phenomena that the paradigm cant explain
scientific change according to khun
gestalt switch, where someones perspective changes from one thing to another. Like with the vase with the faces
even if science and explanatory knowledge
Even if science and explanatory knowledge do not proceed in a “straight line” it seems that our current best theories about reality are better than the earlier ones
E.g. newtons cosmology would be better than Ptolemys
Keynes economic theory would be better than smiths
The pessimistic induction argument
Premise 1: there have been many empirically successful theories in the history of science that have subsequently been rejected as false
Premise 2: our best theories are no different from those theories that were previously rejected
By induction, there is reason to believe our current best theories will be rejected as false
so, there is reason to believe our current best theories are not true
Yes progress! the no miracles argument
Premise 1: our best scientific theories are predictively successful and facilitate technological innovation
Premise 2: The best explanation for these successes is that our best theories are true
So our best scientific theories are true
So our understanding of reality is progressing
-> the claim is that our explanatory knowledge is superiour
Problems with no-miracles argument
use of inference to the best explanation
Does not situate science in a historical and social context
What could we conclude about the nature of scientific change, if we paid attention tot he history and sociology of science
how do our scientific explanations change? why?
If khun is right then
scientific revolution prevents science from proceeding in a straight line
Still, many factors count to understand science development
(in the structure) i have said nothing about the role of technological advance or external social, economic and intellectual conditions in the development of the sciences
explanations typically involve
laws or causes
It is not always obvious that there is a best explanatory strategy: purposes are important
Explanations
change over tme
This can happen through accumulation of knowledge or through radical breakthroughs
is explanation change a progress
we can clarify our question through arguments (pessimistic induction, nno miracles argument) but we need history to engage with single claims
