Midterm exam Flashcards
What is the objective of reasoning?
To arrive at belief
What is a guiding principle?
A habit of mind that determines our decision making - what do we base evidence on for example
What is doubt?
Doubt is not knowing how to act
What is belief?
Knowing how to act
What is inquiry?
struggle to overcome doubt and to establish belief
What are the differences between doubt and belief and how does inquiry relate to each?
Doubt is not knowing how to act belief is knowing how to act. We undergo inquiry to go from doubt to belief
What are the 4 ways of fixing belief?
Tenacity, Authority, A Priori, Science
Tenacity
Hold a belief no matter what new experiences are irrelevant ignore experiences that might cause you to doubt
Authority
As social animals we want agreement We think that other’s opinions may be as good as our own a form of fixing belief at a community level an effective way of getting cooperative action minimizes change to being very gradual
Authority
As social animals we want agreement We think that other’s opinions may be as good as our own a form of fixing belief at a community level an effective way of getting cooperative action minimizes change to being very gradual A weakness is that not all beliefs can be controlled
A priori
deciding that what is most agreeable to reason is truth seeks a universal but changes frequently like style has trouble with other schools of thought “Authority of taste”
Science
External facts have an effect facts cause doubt external permanency is a measure of public belief can use external facts to resolve opinion which everyone can verify there is only right and wrong - the other methods there is no wrong belief weakness - no appeal to hope reason or feeling
What is the example of the diamond and the cotton trying to illustrate?
That we can’t know for certain - we can’t know that the cotton isn’t hard before it is touched because in order to figure that out we would have to interact with it.
Clearness vs distinctness
a clear idea is - so apprehended that it will always be recognized a distinct idea is - contains nothing that is unclear
What is the pragmatic theory of truth
Truth is how something effects our experience or ideas and theories are true if they enable us to solve problems
What is the function or purpose of thought?
To produce belief
Pragmatic maxim of meaning?
The production of belief is the sole function of thought
What is the relationship between reality and truth and how does consilience relate
truth is getting every closer to reality but does not mean that it is independent of thought think of truth as asymptotic to reality
What is the pragmatic theory of truth
Truth is how something effects our experience or ideas and theories are true if they enable us to solve problems
representational theory of mind
our mind is an internal representation of the world of which there is no proof that it is really correct but rather that is only like a map ie: total recall, plato’s cave, the matrix we think we can tell truth from false but there is no way to really know for certain
3 Laws of logic
1) Law of identity - A thing is only identical to itself 2) Law of non contradiction - A predicate (P) and a predicate (not-P) cannot both belong to the same subject ie: The sun is rising and setting or the Sky is Blue and Not Blue 3) The law of the excluded middle - a sentence is either true or false there is no other possibility
3 types of inference
1) deduction - truth of premise proves the truth of the conclusion - true but extremely limited 2) induction - assumed truth of the premise makes it probable that the conclusion is also true 3) Hypothesis - an explanation sought for a curiosity or problem is produced by making a guess. If the premises are true then the conclusion is not only likely to be true but also is likely to account for the premises and their relations
Syllogism
Argument with three parts All birds are animals All parrots are birds All parrots are animals
Modus ponens
p, if p then q, q Liam is studying If Liam studies he will do better Liam will do better
Modus tollens
p if p not q not q Liam is studying If Liam is studying then he is not relaxing Liam is not relaxing
Validity vs Soundness
Valid - the truth of the conclusion is necessitated by the truth of the premises regardless of whether the premises are true sound - a sound argument is a valid argument with a true premises
strength v cogency
strong - if the premise is true the conclusion is probable cogent - a strong argument with a true premise
Rule v case v result
rule: if raining the ground is wet result: the ground is wet case: it is raining Deduction - case + rule –> result Induction - case + result –> rule Hypothesis - rule + result –> case
genus v species sufficient v necessary
genus + species = general and specific sufficient + necessary = if a then b - a is sufficient condition - b is the necessary condition
What is a worldview
an intertwined interrelated system of beliefs
What is a worldview
an intertwined interrelated system of beliefs
What is evidence what types are there
Something which points to reality
direct evidence - I ride my bike I directly observed that
indirect evidence or conceptual/philisophical evidence - evidence based on worldview
Truth v fact v belief
Truth - independent of us - based on fact
Fact - based on truth
Belief - Not necessarily understood to be based on truth
metaphysics
theory of being “what makes something true”
epistomology
theory of knowledge “what beliefs are true”
Type v Token
Vehicle = type Ford = Token
Correspondence theory of truth
The “mirror” a reflection of reality As long as it reflects your experience it is ok
Coherence
as long as it fits your web of belief it is fine think “web”
Coherence
as long as it fits your web of belief it is fine think “web” or a jigsaw puzzle weakness is that it can be coherent but completely wrong
representational theory of mind and what does it have to do with correspondence theory of truth
representational theory of mind - that the mind is an internal representation of the external world like a map but that there is a “veil of ideas” between our mind and the world - no proof that our mind is real our mind is only a representation of truth it is not truth itself problem: if so how do we find out reality ie in matrix experiments are fake
three metaphors for theories of truth
coherence - web / puzzle correspondence - mirror pragmatic - cord
foundationism
to have a certain belief on which all others can rest
rationalism
all knowledge is based on reason alone
empiricism
all knowledge is based on experience alone
radical skepticism
the idea that true knowledge is basically unknowable
radical skepticism
the idea that true knowledge is basically unknowable
a priori
based on deduction rather than based on fact
posteriori
based on observation
empirical fact
based on direct observational evidence
philosophical / conceptual fact
based on our web of belief such as the pencil in the drawer
confirmation reasoning
a theory makes a prediction the prediction is correct this is confirmation reasoning
disconfirming evidence
an experiment makes a prediction that is false or irreplicable is taken as evidence that the theory is false
disconfirming evidence
an experiment makes a prediction that is false or irreplicable is taken as evidence that the theory is false
simplifying assumption
knowing something and acknowledging that its impact is small choosing to ignore it to make the math easier
Auxillary hypothesis
if this is ethanol it should boil at this temperature (or I did any number of things wrong) the other things are the auxiliary hypothesis
Quine-Duhem Thesis
there will always be auxillary hypothesis what needs revision if an experiment fails 1) there may not be critical experiments where only one theory predicts an outcome - too many auxiliary hypothesis 2) undetermination of theories - can never know for certain 3) tribunal of experience - are not testing an individual aspect of a worldview but rather it on the whole and if it is wrong you have to either modify or reject
scientific method
observe hypothesis experiment
Aristotles’ axiomatic approach
knowledge is only certain not probable self evident concepts and follow laws of logic to arrive at facts
Descarte’s axiomatic approach
did not take anything as self-evident and started only with something known to be true as a foundation of knowledge - but is too narrow to build on
Popper’s falsification
science should focus on dis-confirmation the best theories are risky theories that are hard to disconfirm (Freud) are more psedo-scientific
hypothetical deductive method
from a set of hypothesises one can deduce observation consequences. Test to see if they are observed if they are this is taken as support for the hypothesis ie: support for hypothesis
what is the context of discovery and the context of justification?
context of discovery - how do you come about to a theory context of justification - how do you confirm if a theory is correct
What are the problems with induction
things can never be known for certain with induction they are always only probable
Hume’s problem with induction
How do we make predictions? Gather data if it happened before it will likely happen again in the future. Why? Because in the past things that happened continued to happen in the future. Induction relies on circular logic
implied premise
something on which an argument presupposes
Hemple’s Raven Paradox
All raven’s are black all things not black are not ravens ie: evidence that ravens are black induction can rely on bad evidence or evidence that means very very little
contraposition
presenting something in it opposite form
A is B –>
All not A are not B
Goodman’s problem with induction
Grue a color that before 2050 is green but after 2050 is Blue The evidence that grass is grue is just as strong as the evidence that it is green
projectible predicate
a predicate that we can project into the future (green) vs one we cannot (grue)
falsifiability
put theories forward in such a way that they can be tested and try to falsify them
Problem with falsifiablity
what is being tested the hypothesis or the auxiliary can’t just give up on a theory because of one instance of dis-confirming evidence sometimes you should assume its the auxiliary hypothesis that is wrong - how to know when
demarcation problem What does popper think the solution is
what marks the difference between science and non-science for popper in order for something to be science it must be open to being falsifiable - if not it is not science
Pattern of science according to popper
conjecture refute repeat hopefully getting better each time
Problems with popper
only dis-confirming evidence makes no claim about future only the past - thus it makes no predictions
corroboration vs confirmation
confirm = proof corroborate = suggests truth
fallibilism
the idea that our ideas beliefs theory facts are never certain but are open to revision in light of certain experience
what do we want from our scientific theories
accurate predictions and understanding
instrumentalist
science is good as long as it predicts and explains regardless of reality
realist
science must predict explain and reflect reality
how do instrumentalist and realism relate to the theories of truth
generally instrumental = coherence realist = correspondence
paradigm
worldview and how to do science
normal v crisis v revolution science according to Kuhn
normal - well excepted paradigm with known approach methods facts used to investigate crisis - no paradigm fundamentals are in question revolution - a new normal in the paradigm where rapid progress is made
Why is Kuhn’s theory so controversial
it seems to portray scientific progress as arbitrary
How is a paradigm refuted according to Kuhn what is an anomaly
as long as paradigm works it is accepted but as more problems accumulate that a paradigm cannot solve you can get a revolution “critical mass of anomalies” anomaly - something paradigm cannot explain
What is the pattern of scientific change for Kuhn vs Popper
For Kuhn the pattern is there is an accepted paradigm (normal) gradually anomalies build up and you get crisis until a new paradigm emerges For Popper there is only conjecture refute repeat the biggest difference is that for Kuhn a critical mass of anomalies has to be reached before the paradigm is overcome
Kuhn on progress and incommensurability?
Kuhn doesn’t think that there is necessarily progress in science rather each paradigm stands on its own and isn’t necessarily comparable (incommensurable) with each other
relitavism
the idea that nothing is absolute but that things are rooted in culture society etc. in this case with regards to truth and scientific knowledge
How does Kuhn view reality as relating to science
According to Kuhn good science makes good predictions and maybe helps us to understand things it does not have to reflect reality
Similarity and differences between paradigms, research programs and research traditions. Which theory do each belong to
Paradigm - Kuhn - only one paradigm research program - Lakatos - there can be many scientific progress understood as competition between research programs also thought that research should be made to look as logical as possible after the fact Research tradition - Lauden - can pursue a theory without accepting it has the idea that scientists switch tradition based on the progress in a tradition - doesn’t pay much attention to when to switch or number of people in a tradition - didn’t like that it was portrayed as being illogical by Kuhn
Epistemological anarchism - who supports this theory
opposing all systems and rules what is important is the free development of creativity and imagination Feyerabend
Hard core vs soft belt
Lakatos’ research program argues that they each have a hard core - central components to the theory that are unchangeable - and soft belts - parts of the theory that can be changed without too much difficulty.
Progress and degeneration according to Lakatos
progress is when more anomalies are answered and when they have more application degeneration is the opposite
acceptance vs. pursuit of a theory according to Lauden
one can accept a theory (believe) it while pursuing another means that a scientist can work on something potentially productive without necessarily accepting it until the evidence does or does not appear
strengths and weaknesses of Lakatos and Lauden’s position
The weakness of lauden’s theory is that it doesn not give much a suggestion as to when one should switch a research tradition Lakatos has the whole propaganda thing where science should be attempted to be portrayed as logical even when it is not also does not say when one should switch from a progressive vs a degenerative theory since it is ok to protect them at times
What is the role of aesthetics in Feyerabend’s position
like Oscar Wilde Feyerabend thinks that things shouldn’t be allowed to get in the way of art or in this case science rules and constraints should not be allowed to restrain creativity and free thought - they often lead us astray and hold us back
What is Feyerabend’s critique of Kuhn
Feyerabend finds that Kuhn is too encouraging of the “mind numbing routine of normal science … He saw Kuhn as encouraging the worst trends in twentieth century science toward professionalization, narrow-mindedness, and exclusion of unorthodox ideas”
Feyerabend and an enemy of science
some think that Feyerabend was an enemy of science but in fact he was just an enemy of science that is too tied up in routine and unaccepting of outside influences / radical
Argument from history that haunts philosophy
if we only looked at empirical evidence ie: the evidence that we don’t feel the Earth moving we would still be trapped in wrong worldviews so often science is best accomplished when one goes against the established systems - Feyerabend just takes it too far in that he suggests we always go against the system
Feyerabend on pluralism, principle of tenacity, principle of proliferation
principle of tenacity - hold onto attractive theories despite initial problems to allow them a chance to develop their potential principle of proliferation - make up new theories propose new ideas Pluralism - having a variety of ideas to choose from - for Feyerabend this means having a variety of scientific theories because it benefits society
In the Aristotelian worldview what are the five elements and how do they work
Fire - lighter than air Air - lighter than water Earth - the heaviest moves to the center of the universe Water - lighter than Earth Ether - the lightest and perfect moves in circles
Why is there a boundary between the sublunar and the superlunar
because the heavens are a place of perfection and the Earth is not
What are Aristotle’s four causes
Material - what a thing is made of - this is conductive because it is made of metal Formal - What shape it has - this catapult works because of its design Efficient - what brings something about - my pencil moved because I moved it Teleological or Final cause - it is its purpose or goal - the moon moves in a circle around the Earth because that is its purpose - or a rock falls to the center because that is its purpose
Teleology
an explanation of something by purpose - moves in circle because it wants to be like the Gods
essentialism
objects follow the essential nature of their components ie: rock falls because it is made of Earth which moves to center
Mechanistic
an explanation that is not given in terms of a goal or a purpose or function
Why did Ptolemy think that the Earth was stationary
- we do not feel it move (vibration and wind) - no star parallax - what is moving the Earth it takes something to move a boulder it is empirical observable evidence teloscope would weaken many of its claims and while it is good at prediction it is not perfect by any means and was rather convoluted and relied on teleological explanations
How does motion work in the Aristotelian worldview? Prime mover / unmoved mover
an object in motion will stop unless acted on by an external force an unmoved mover moves other things without moving itself such as God moving the heavens as they strive to emulate it or how you move to a cute puppy without it moving
In the Ptolemeic worldview what are
- epicycles
- deferents
- eccentrics
- equant points
- epicycle is an orbit around a point orbiting
- deferrent is an orbit around the center of the system (or eccentric if it is not the center)
- equant point is the location from which the speed of the orbit is assessed to get constant uniform motion
Describe the Ptolemeic system
- Earth Centered universe
- Planets move aobut in orbits on orbits
- decent at prediction
- based on some teleologic points
- also based on observation
Describe the Copernican system
- sun centered model
- still has orbits on orbits
- still has stars in the fillament
- but did view them as being farther away
- still had perfect circles and uniform motion
similarities differences strenghts and weaknesses between the Copurnican and Ptolemic systems
- Similar
- defferents, eccentrics,epicycles
- Uniform circular motion
- Differences
- sun v earth centered
- no equant point in copernicus
- Strenghts and weaknesses
- Copuricas is easier math
- Ptolemy is more fitting with evidence of a stationary Earth
Neoplatism
Sun = Good = God
Copurnicus thought that God should be the center of the universe and thought that the Sun was the most God-like thing
So he made a system that put God at the center of things where he belonged
How was Copernicus recieved?
- People were excited it had new tables and was good at prediction and was the first new theory in a long time
- However it was not allowed to be taught with the sun-centered taken literally
- thus it was viewed as a good instrumental and not a realist model and was taught in schools
Tychonic system
basically the copernican system but it put Earth back in the center of the universe and then had the planets orbit the sun
mathmatical equivalent
just as good at prediction but got rid of the sun centered problems
a big advantage was that the invention of the telescope provided good evidence that at least some of the planets moved around the sun this provided a good explanation that still fit a Earth centered model
Describe Kepler’s system
How did he get to it and what where his motivations?
Kepler was aided by having worked with Tycho and having access to some of the best observational data
He was motivated by wanting to know the “mind of God” –> motivated him to find the truth/ “regularities in nature” he also had 5 perfect solids that happened to be somewhat close to planets orbits.
This is the modern “correct” system
Kepler’s two laws of planetary motion
Kepler’s first law- planets orbit the sun in an ellyptical motion
Kepler’s second law - a line drawn from planet to sun will cover an equal area in time (further from sun slower the orbit)
How were Kepler’s theories recieved?
They were largely overshadowed by Galileo and were placed by the church on the forbidden books list
What were the main factors that allowed Galileo’s discoveries?
He had access to telescopes
What were the limitations of Galileo’s studies via telescope?
Telescope cannot prove a Earth or a Sun centered model
What evidence of Galileo’s threatened the Ptolemeic worldview?
- Mountains on the moon - not perfect in nature
- Sunspots - also not perfect
- Saturn’s ring (ears) - not perfect
- Moons of Jupiter - why would they orbit Jupiter also had been a criticism of Earth centered why would everything go around sun but moon goes around the Earth - showed that either way something doesn’t fit
- Phases of venus - different prediction than Ptolemy
Reception of galileo
- He was ordered not to teach or defend his sun-centered model - but mostly got off without trouble
- He then published again and was placed under house arrest
- Because he didn’t advocate it as a instrumentalist view but rather as a realist one he was recieved poorly
Describe the transition from the aristotelian worldview to the newtonian one
gradually parts of the aristotelian worldview were found to be problematic eventually there was a critical mass of issues and newton’s stepped in to fill the void
Describe the shift from Aristotelian to Newtonian worldview from the perspective of: Peirce, Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Laudan, Feyerabend
Peirce - doubt we gained belief
Popper - aristotelian view was falsified
Kuhn - critical mass of anomolies lead to revolutionary science
Lakatos / Lauden- research program became regressive people shifted to a more progressive one gradually
Feyerabend- free thinking people who did not follow the established rules of the current system were able to overturn it and discover better explanations
Problems with the aristotelian worldview in the 1600s
once it became clear that the Earth was not the center of the universe the web of beliefs fell apart
- it no longer made sense why rock fell
- the motion of planetary objects didn’t make sense (ellyptical)
- why do objects in motion stop
- space not a region of perfection
- no stellar parallax = far
Philisophical/ conceptual changes with aristotelian worldview
- very large universe as opposed to the previously viewed small universe
Who were important to raising the idea that the universe may actually be much larger than previously thought
Nicholas de Cusa and Giordano Bruno - both thought that the idea that if God is infinite than so should his universe be which was helpful for putting things in perspective for a major change in worldview
What is atomism
the idea that atoms are fundamental part of everything and are unchangeable that they move straight and act like billard balls where they stick or bounce
Newton’s three laws of motion
1) Principle of Inertia - objects in motion stay in motion in a straight line. Similarlly an object at rest stays at rest until acted upon by an external force
2) F=ma
3) For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction
Newton’s universal gravitation
Gm1m2/r^2
- there is mutual attraction between objects
- mechanistic not teleological
- Aristotle’s God actively moves vs. for Newton he was Deistic a watchmaker God who set rules then let it happen
Deism
watchmaker God he made the rules then simply allowed things to play their course
Divine right of kings
kings rule because they are chosen by God - this is problematic when it becomes clear that humans aren’t at the center of the universe anymore why would we be that important
Newton and Deomcracy how do they fit together
Made humans seem less like the center of everything and as such hierarchies seemed to make less sense and thus more prone for democracy
What is an occult force
a force that acts at a distance
problem with realism in Newtonian worldview
gravity was viewed instrumentally as newton did not have an explantation for how it works
What does it mean to so that modern science was Newtonized?
Chemistry - began to be viewed quantitatively rather than qualitatively
Biology - began to be view as mechanistic rather than viewing living things as essentially different from no living things
Minor clouds in Newton’s model
The michaelson and morley experiment which showed that there was not a medium through which light traveled
Black body radiation
Why do elements give off light at specific wavelengths
Michaelson Morley experiment
Tried to prove the existance of ether but ultimately showed that in fact there was no ether
it involved shooting rays of light at 90 degree angles to each other and seeing the difference in the time at which they return
black body radiation and why problematic
black bodies should give off radiation unfortunately they gave off a wavelength that was off when in the uv range
problem with elements giving off very specific wavelengths instead of many
due to quantized energy states that where not accounted for by Newton
Cathode rays + radiation - wave or particle
Scientific law vs natural law
also what is common to scientific laws
scientific law only approximate how something behaves wheras a natural law is a fundamental aspect of the universe
generally scientific laws exhibit exceptionaless regularity
they are also objective - not dependent on humans
they do not vary with counterfactuals
What is exceptionless regularity
when something occurs without exception but does not alone make something a scientific law
what is objectivity using Dewitt’s definition
objectivity is something that exists independently of humans
What is the purpose of counterfactuals with regard to scientific law?
If a statement can be made no longer exceptionlessly regular with the use of counterfactuals it is not a law
What is context dependence and how does it complicate counterfactuals with regard to scientific law
what about ceteris paribus
we require conterfactuals in order to define scientific laws but counterfactuals are true or false depending on the context
ceteris paribus - all else being equal - used to dismiss the things that would make the law wrong such as for kepler’s law an astroid striking a planet - but what is or is not a “other” influence is dependent on humans
incomesurability
can different theories even be compared or are they apples and oranges
for example aristotles and newton’s idea of weight are very different and are codefined by terms in their system so there may not be a good way to compare them
What is scientific progress?
in the context of the 3 theories of truth?
Realism + instrumentalism?
Whether or not science actually improves or if it just becomes different
coherence - only better if it is more coherent
correspondence - does it reflect nature better
science + instrumentalism - is it better at making predictions
realism - is it closer to reality
How is einstein’s theory of special relativity related to electromagnetism
it solves some problematic issue with it
What is absolute space and what is absolulte time?
absolute space - the belief that space does not change size
absolute time - the belief that time is always constant
Principle of the constant velocity of light
regardless of refrence frame the speed of light is always constant
Rough and precise version of thep rinciple of relatvity
rough version - there is no priviledged point of view
precise version - if two observers are in identical laboratories except that the labs are moving in straight lines with uniform speed with respect to each another, and if identical experiments are carried out in the two labs, then the results of the experiments will be identical
Time dialation, length contraction, Lorentz-Fitzgerald equation
Time passes more slowly for people and objects in motion by a factor of (1-(v/c)^2)^.5
Distances shrink for people and objects in motion bya factor of same
the equation is the Lorentz-Fitzgerald equation
relativity of simultaneity
whether or not events occured simulataneously is dependent on refrence frame
Is special relativity self-contradictory?
No its only self contradictory when one blelieves in absolute time the agree on the facts of the situations just not on what those facts mean
What is spactime
What is a spactime interval
spacetime is a unit that measures not space and not time but rather a combination of both
a spactime interval is a “distance” between events and is constant regardless of reference point thus it is a invariant property
the equation for it is:
s2=(cΔt)2 - Δx2 - Δy2 - Δz2
What is the difference between the special and the general theory of relativity
The theory of special relativity only applies in inertial refrence frames whereas the theory of general relativity applies in any reference frame
Principle of general covariance
the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames
Principle of equivalence
effects due to gravity are equivalent to effects of an equal ammount of acceleration (Black elevator example)
What is a geodesic
the shortest possible line between two points
What is gravitational redshift
When light moves away from a gravitational field it will be shifted slightly in wavelength towards the red end of the spectrum
What are gravitational waves
A ripple in spacetime caused by a major event such as a star going super-nova
What are some consequences of general relativity in regard to the notion of gravity
it should make gravity be understood less as a force and more as objects continuing in a straight line but that the curvature of space has changed so that (straight) is now curved it is just continuing to follow its geodesic
