lecture 5 Flashcards
question: what is the difference between enacted
cognition and enactivism?
• both positions claim that cognition emerges as the result
of brain, body and environment interactions
• enacted cognition claims that cognition critically depends
on these interactions, without interaction no cognition
• enactivism claims in addition that, if we study these
interactions closely, they don’t require us to postulate
(internal and abstract) cognitive processes whatsoever
Problems for ‘naive inductivism’
• observation is not determined solely by the object viewed
• The perceptual experiences of a skilled observer are not
identical to those of the untrained novice
• e.g., medical student
Observable facts are expressed as linguistic statements
• we need to distinguish facts, as statements about states of
affairs, from the states of affairs themselves, and from the
perceptions of those facts
• thus, observation statements are not given to observers via the
senses
• before we can formulate an observation statement, we need an
appropriate conceptual framework and knowledge of how to
apply it
• e.g, the botanist
why Science is “theory-laden”
• i.e., scientific observations are (to a certain degree) based on
the experience, knowledge and expectations of the observer
• contemporary science postulates many non-observable entities
• the justification for postulating these entities is simply their
explanatory and predictive power
The induction principle, what are the three steps?
if a 1) large number of A’s have been observed under a 2) wide
variety of conditions, and if all those A‘s 3) without exception
possess the property B, then all A‘s have the property B
Further problems of inductivism
• inductivism cannot account for unobservable entities postulated
by contemporary science
• observation measures are always somewhat imprecise and
inexact
• the induction principle itself cannot be justified
What to do? - falsificationism
- Science cannot be justified in a rational way
- We need some kind of induction principle
- Science is based on falsification instead of induction
what does Falsificationism set apart and who is closely associated with its theory?
KArl Popper…
• the revisability of scientific hypotheses and theories is wat sets
them apart
• a hypothesis is falsifiable just in case there is some piece of
evidence that could conclusively refute it
• the problem with the theories of Marx, Freud and Adler
Falsificationism as a solution to the problem of induction
• we cannot know whether a theory is true, but we can know
whether it is false
premise: A raven, which was not black, was at place x at time t.
———————————————————————–
conclusion: Not all ravens are black.
• this is a logically valid deduction
no ad-hoc modifications
• the theory “All bread nourishes” was falsified when people
in a French village became seriously ill and died
• the theory can be modified to avoid this falsification
“(All) bread, with the exception of that particular batch of
bread produced in the French village in question, nourishes”
• this is an ad hoc modification to protect the theory from
falsification
When modifications are acceptable
• when the new theory is independently testable
correcting Popper:
significant advances in science are marked by
1) the confirmation of bold conjectures, or
2) the falsification of cautious conjectures
• falsification of cautious conjectures is informative because it
establishes that what was regarded as true is in fact false
• but little is learnt from:
a) the falsification of a bold conjecture, or
b) the confirmation of a catious conjecture
if a bold conjecture is falsified
yet another crazy idea has
been proved wrong
The Duhem/Quine thesis
a theory cannot be conclusively falsified, because we cannot rule
out that some part of the test situation, other than the theory
under test, is responsible for a false prediction
Kuhn’s interpretation of the history of science
(pre-paradigmatic phase)
• normal science
• crisis
• scientific revolution
three phases
