Lecture 9&10 + chapter 9

Question 1

Science’s claim of suporiority was based on 4 principles what are these?

Answer 1

1: Realism: there is a physical world with independent objects that can be understood by human intellext

2: Objectivity: knowledge of the physcial reality doesn’t depend on the observer

3: Truth: scientific statements are true when they correpond to the physical reality

4: Rationality: truth is guaranteed because scientific statements are based on sound method

Question 2

Inductive reasoning

Answer 2

form of reasoning in which conclusions are drawn based on a series of convergent observations.

note: conclusions are not necessarily true

Question 3

Russel’s paradox

Answer 3

an important part of logic is set theory (a collection of elements that are defined in a certain way), but it turns out that you can define a set that results in a paradox.

You could consider the set that consists of all sets that don’t contain themselves, and the question is, would this set then contain itself? This is often explained with a hairdresser with a note on his window saying “I shave every person that does not shave himself/herself” but the question arises about whether the hairdresser should shave himself/herself? If he does, he doesn’t only shave people that don’t shave themselves (because he shaves himself) but if he doesn’t, he misses out on one element (himself who doesn’t shave himself).

Question 4

Wittgenstein I

Answer 4

Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

Question 5

Wittgenstein II

Answer 5

Philosophical investigations

Question 6

Set theory

Answer 6

A part of logic concerned with sets, which is a collection of things all defined according to a certain way. (set of red things is that ecery element that is red is part of that set, imagine a set of fruits that are red. A banana won’t belong there, since it is not red)

Question 7

What was according Wittgenstein the way to make the paradox disappear

Answer 7

‘what makes something meaningful’

Question 8

Is the world a collection of objects or facts?

Answer 8

The world is a collection of facts (true states of affairs), not objects.

Example of a fact: This chair is red.
Non-fact: This chair is blue (if it’s actually red).

Question 9

What’s the difference between elementary and complex facts?

Answer 9

Elementary fact: Simple, smallest unit (e.g., Jan is taller than Piet).
Complex fact: Combination of elementary facts (e.g., Jan is taller than Piet, and Piet is taller than Marie).

Question 10

What does a statement (or proposition) express?

Answer 10

A possible state of affairs.

True = The state of affairs actually exists.
False = The state of affairs doesn’t exist but still has meaning

Question 11

What is the Picture Theory of Truth?

Answer 11

A statement is true if it depicts a state of affairs that matches reality.

Example: The cat is on the mat is true if the cat is actually on the mat.

Question 12

What’s the difference between what can be said and what can’t?

Answer 12

Sayable: Facts and states of affairs, whether true or false.
Example: This chair is red (sayable, meaningful).
Not-sayable: Ethics, aesthetics, values (e.g., This painting is beautiful).

Question 13

Are things that can’t be said (like love or courage) meaningless?

Answer 13

No! They show themselves through actions and experiences, but they aren’t part of science.

Example: Love shows itself in how people behave, but it’s not a fact.

Question 14

what was the goal of the logical positivists?

Answer 14

To get rid of vagueness in philosophy and make it scientific. By deciding what was meaningful and meaningless and give the meaningful questions to the natural sciences

Question 15

positivism

Answer 15

True knowledge can only be obtained by means of the scientific method

Question 16

logical positivism

Answer 16

a movement in the first half of the twentieth century, they claim that philosophy should stop thinking about metaphysics and instead try to understand the essence of the scientific approach.

Central theme: verification method

Question 17

What are the 4 starting points of the ‘manifesto of logical’

Answer 17

1. meaningful claims are either empirical or logical in nature
2. logical claims are verifiable by looking at their form (modus ponens)
3. empirical claims can be verified by observation
4. claims that are not verifiable are meaningless

Question 18

Who are the logical positivist attacking?

Answer 18

Metaphysicians.

They do this by focusing on meaning, what is meaningful

Question 19

How does the verifiability criterion differ from Wittgenstein’s view of meaningfulness?

Answer 19

Wittgenstein: A statement is meaningful if it depicts a possible state of affairs.

Logical Positivists: A statement is meaningful only if it’s verifiable (you can check its truth by observing reality).

Question 20

How are logical positivists similar to David Hume?

Answer 20

Both rejected metaphysics as meaningless for science.

Logical positivists: Science focuses on verifiable and observable phenomena.

Hume: Rejected causality because it cannot come directly from experience. (Logical positivists don’t deny that certain unobservable things exist, but just that they are not a part of science)

Question 21

Verificationism

Answer 21

adherence to the principle that a proposition is meaningful only if it can be verified as true or false. In science this means that a proposition is only scientific if it can be verified through observation

Question 22

sense data

Answer 22

experiences are gained through sensory perception. (logical positivists)

Question 23

When do logical positivists call something an observation sentence?

Answer 23

when it is a statement that directly describes reality. (eg, this person has answered yes to all the questions)

Question 24

What is the role of laws in logical positivism?

Answer 24

Laws are compressions of relations between observations.
They summarize patterns seen at the observational level (not explanations).
Focus: Verify laws by observation, and discard what isn’t verifiable.

Question 25

What contains the verifiability problem I: the separation of theory and observation? (3)

Answer 25

1. Observations can’t fully define concepts:
   Example: Clinically depressed is richer than just answering “yes” to specific questions.
2. Concepts are open-ended:
   Example: Vain isn’t just “looks at herself in the mirror”—it evolves (e.g., posts selfies).
3. Theories are richer than observations:
   Concepts like force or mass apply to things we haven’t yet observed.

Question 26

What are the 4 main problems of verifiability?

Answer 26

I: seperation of theory and observation
II: induction-problem
III: unobservable entities
IIII: no guarantee of correct understanding

Question 27

What does theory-ladenness mean?

Answer 27

Observations are never neutral; they always involve theory.

Example: Observing “brain activity” with an fMRI depends on theories about blood flow and how the instrument works.
Popper’s Example: Observing without knowing what to look for is impossible.

Question 28

What is the underdetermination of theories?

Answer 28

Data alone cannot determine a single theory; multiple theories can fit the same data.
Example: Duck-rabbit image—pixels allow both interpretations, but other factors (theory, perspective) decide what we see.
In statistics: Latent variable models vs. network models for anxiety/depression—data can’t distinguish between them.

Question 29

Why is induction a problem for logical positivism?

Answer 29

General statements (e.g., force = mass × acceleration) require observing all cases, which is impossible.

Truth of a theory can’t be derived solely from observations.

Question 30

Why did logical positivists reject causality?

Answer 30

Causality relies on induction (patterns observed repeatedly), which they considered unscientific.

But causality (e.g., smoking causes lung cancer) is essential for science

Question 31

Why are unobserved entities a problem for logical positivism?

Answer 31

Science includes unobservable things (e.g., microbes before microscopes), but logical positivism relied on direct observation.
Tools like microscopes involve theory, challenging the idea of pure observation

Question 32

How did Wittgenstein’s new theory of meaning differ?

Answer 32

Early Wittgenstein: Meaning = State of affairs a statement refers to.

Later Wittgenstein: Meaning = How language is used in context (context-dependent).

Question 33

So in short: the verification criterion does not work because:

Answer 33

• theory and observation cannot be strictly seperated (open concepts, theory-ladenness, underdetermination)
• statements about infinite sets, causality and unobservable entities are not verifiable but clearly meaningful

-science is full of unobservable and they can become observable

Question 34

How did Popper’s approach differ from logical positivists?

Answer 34

Logical Positivists: Build science from observations using induction (bottom-up).
Popper: Uses deduction, starts with bold conjectures (general theories) and tests them.

Question 35

Why did Popper criticize psychoanalysis and Marxism?

Answer 35

These theories explained too much (high explanatory power).
Problem: They could explain any observation, so they couldn’t be proven wrong.
Good scientific theories must exclude certain observations and be falsifiable.

Question 36

Why did Popper consider Einstein’s general relativity a good scientific theory?

Answer 36

It made precise predictions that excluded possible observations.
Example: The bending of light during a solar eclipse.
If excluded observations occurred, the theory would be falsified.

Question 37

What is falsificationism?

Answer 37

A theory must be bold (risky) and make testable predictions.
If observations conflict with the theory, it must be refuted or falsified.
Strength: Solves the induction problem by focusing on testing, not verifying.

Question 38

What are the steps of Popper’s hypothetico-deductive model?

Answer 38

1. Start with a theory.
2. Use deduction to make predictions.
3. Test predictions through observation.
4. if predictions fail; falsify the theory
5. if predictions do come true: corroborate it (resists falsification).

Question 39

What is the difference between corroboration and confirmation?

Answer 39

Corroboration: The theory has withstood attempts to refute it (made it through strenuous tests).
Confirmation: Logical positivists’ idea of “proving” a theory with evidence.
Corroboration doesn’t mean a theory is true, just stronger.

Question 40

What are the two stages of scientific theories according to Popper?

Answer 40

• Context of Discovery: Formulating the theory (creative, no strict rules).
• Context of Justification: Testing the theory (strict normative rules).

Question 41

Why is Popper considered a rationalist?

Answer 41

Theories spring from the mind (ratio) and are not fully based on observations.
Unlike Plato or Descartes, Popper views the ratio as fallible.
Theories from the ratio must still be tested critically.

Question 42

Why is the black swan a symbol of Popper’s philosophy?

Answer 42

Logical positivists would generalize from observing only white swans.
Popper focuses on looking for a black swan (an observation that falsifies the theory).

Question 43

What is the demarcation criterion?

Answer 43

A criterion used to distinguish between science and non-science. For logical positivists, it was verification; for Popper, it was falsifiability.

Question 44

What is the Quine-Duhem thesis?

Answer 44

When testing a theory, you’re testing a system of assumptions, not one theory in isolation, so it’s unclear what part of the system is falsified.

Question 45

What is a research program, according to Lakatos?

Answer 45

A system of beliefs and assumptions centered on a core theory, with supporting assumptions that can be adjusted.

Question 46

How does Kuhn describe scientific progress?

Answer 46

Science progresses through paradigms. Within a paradigm, normal science occurs, but anomalies may lead to a crisis, causing a paradigm shift.

Question 47

What is epistemological anarchism (Feyerabend)?

Answer 47

The belief that there should be no strict rules in science because breakthroughs (e.g., Galileo’s) often come from breaking traditional rules.

Question 48

What are the two heuristics in Lakatos’ research programs?

Answer 48

Negative heuristic: The core of the theory cannot be revised.
Positive heuristic: Supporting assumptions can be adjusted.

Question 49

What is the main problem with falsificationism?

Answer 49

The Quine-Duhem thesis: you can’t test a theory in isolation, so it’s unclear which part of a system is falsified.

Question 50

What critique does Kuhn offer to Popper’s view?

Answer 50

Kuhn argues science doesn’t progress gradually or cumulatively; paradigm shifts involve changing reference points, not building upon previous paradigms.

Question 51

Why does Feyerabend criticize strict scientific rules?

Answer 51

He argues that strict rules would have led to rejecting theories like Copernicus’ heliocentrism and stifled scientific progress.

Question 52

Which statements are more falsifible

Answer 52

The more general and precise a statement is, the easier it is to falsify. The more conditions and specific factors involved, the harder it is to falsify.