philosophy midterm Flashcards
1
Q
Structure of reasoning
A
Avaliable information -> Mental processing -> New Information (inference) -> New position/knowledge/belief
- Last step: Provide reasoning to others through a philisophical argument
2
Q
Two main types of arguments
A
- Inductive: It’s PROBABLE that it’s true. Can’t be definitively proven, but can come to a general consensus. Non-conclusive
- Deductive: Certain conclusion. If the reasons are true, the conclusion MUST also be true. Undeniable conclusion
3
Q
Inductive argument
A
- Goes beyond the given information
- AMPLIATIVE
- It’s either a strong or weak argument
- The conclusion of a strong inductive argument is LIKELY true
- If it’s premises are true, or very probably true, the argument is COGENT
- To be cogent, an argument must be inductively strong and have true/probably true premises
- Test of strength: To what extent does the truth of these premises suggest the truth of the conclusion?
4
Q
Deductive Argument
A
- Extracts information that’s given in the premises.
- Tells us nothing more than what is given in the premises but rearranges or reveals it in a way that might be more useful/revealing
- When an argument succeeds in providing conclusive support for its conclusion, the argument is VALID (Deductively valid)
- We can’t accept an argument just because it’s valid, the premises must also be true
- An argument that’s deductively valid with true premises is SOUND
5
Q
Soundness in deductive arguments
A
- There are two conditions
- It must be deductively valid
- The premises must be true
- An argument can be unsound when
- It may have false premises
- It’s deducively invalid
6
Q
Descartes Meditations Objectives
A
- To explain why we can doubt all things, especially material things
- To establish a secure foundation for the sciences, which will erase or minimize the doubt
- It makes it impossible for us to doubt things that are true
7
Q
Meditation 1- Descartes, the senses and 2 types of beliefs
A
- Descartes beliefs fall into 2 categories
- Beliefs that are definetly true, and beliefs that are probably true (therefore doubtful)
- Descartes tries to find a way to eliminate doubtful beliefs
- To do this, he deconstructs all his doubtful beliefs and reconstructs them in a way that leaves no room for doubt
- Knowledge from our senses can be set aside because the senses often decieve us and therefore can’t be trusted
8
Q
Meditation 1- Descartes, primary qualities
A
- Descartes sets aside sensory experience, but not the primary qualities (Galileo)
- The primary qualities are size, figure, position, motion, and quantity. They’re inherent to the object and not dependent on sensory input
9
Q
Meditation 1- Descartes, the sciences
A
- Descartes sets aside the complex sciences of physics, chemistry, and biology
- He keeps the abstract sciences of math and geometry
- He also assumes that he doesn’t have any senses or a body, because what if he’s being decieved by a demon that claims to be god
10
Q
Meditation 2- Descartes, God and such, one thing he knows for sure
A
- Descartes tries to identify one thing he can know for certain
- The existence of God? God gave him all his thoughts so he must exist, but that’s not sufficient proof
- If there is nothing in the universe, does that mean he too doesn’t exist? What if the being that’s pretending to be God is trying to trick him?
- “He will never succeed in making me nothing, as long as I am aware that I am something”
- I think therefore I am.
- But that is not sufficient proof of God
11
Q
Meditation 2- Descartes, “I”
A
- What is this “I” that Descartes keeps mentioning?
- He is something real that thinks and exists, but what is this thing?
- He is a thinking thing
- Someone that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, is willing, unwilling, imaginative, and perceptive
12
Q
Meditation 3- Descartes, proving the existence of God, different types of though
A
- Descartes tries to prove the existence of God by proving the existence of at least one thing besides himself
- Distinguishes different kinds of thoughts
- Ideas (mental images of things, can’t be false because they are just themselves)
- Judgments (Can’t be true or false, an error is that he judges ideas on how similar they are to the things located outside of himself)
- Decides to focus on judgments
13
Q
Meditation 3- Descartes, ideas and objects of ideas/Mode and substance
A
- He distinguishes between ideas, and objects of ideas
- Substance: Anything that exists independently, a thing that has properties (a ball). For every substance, there is one property that it can’t exist without.
- Mode: The quality/property of the thing (colour of the ball)
- The MODE depends on the SUBSTANCE for exsitence
- The substance’s existence is independent from the mode
- IDEAS are Modes of the mind. Whatever you’re thinking about is the mode of that mind
14
Q
Meditation 3- Descartes, levels and existence of reality
A
- The highest degree of reality is infinite substances (God)
- Medium degrees of reality are finite substances (Trees, animals, buildings, etc)
- Modes are the lowest degree of reality
15
Q
Meditation 3- Descartes, Formal reality vs. Objective reality
A
- The formal reality of something is the same as its degree of reality
- The objective reality of something is the same level of formal reality as its object (only ideas have objects) (Ex. Red, Flat, Smooth as concepts)
16
Q
Meditation 3- Descartes, Argument for the existence of God
A
- He exists as a thinking thing that has ideas
- Among the ideas are corporeal things and the idea of God
- It’s possible that he made up the idea of corporeal things (lower degree of reality) but not the idea of God (higher degree of reality)
- Because God has a higher degree of reality and therefore he couldn’t come up with the idea on his own and it would have to be placed there by something bigger than himself (God)
17
Q
John Locke, Human Understanding
A
- Locke opposes that some contents of the mind precede experience
- Claims that the mind starts off as a blank slate and everything comes from experience or elements of experience
- Our observation of external, senseible objects, combined with the internal operations of our minds is what supplies our understanding with the materials of thinking
18
Q
Human Understanding- Locke, Source of Knowledge
A
- Two sources
1. Objects of sensation
2. Operations of the Mind (reflection)
19
Q
Human Understanding- Locke, Objects of sensation
A
- Senses convey ideas into our minds
- The source of most of the ideas we have depend entierly on our senses and, derived by them, we come to the understanding of sensation
20
Q
Human Understanding- Locke, Operations of the Mind
A
- The perception of the operations of our own mind within us, as it’s employed about the ideas it has
- The operation of the mind produces new ideas which do not come from outside (inferences)
- Any time there’s an interaction between our senses and an external sensation, an idea is produced in the mind
- It’s important to distinguish between ideas and the sensations as they exist in the mind, vs. the external objects that produce the sensations
- Objects produce Ideas and innate qualities of the things
21
Q
Human Understanding- Locke, Qualities in objects
A
- There are two
Primary qualities produce simple ideas - They’re qualities that are inseprable from the object, no matter what happens to it
- Solidity, extention, motion/rest, number, or shape
Secondary Qualities of bodies - Colours, sounds, tastes, smells, textures (things conveyed by the senses)
- Mind dependent qualities
22
Q
Human Understanding- Locke, Simple ideas
A
- Come directly from sensation and reflection
- Can not be broken down any simpler
- They are put into the mind involuntatily as we interact with external objects
- Involve 3 distinct activities of the mind
23
Q
Human Understanding- Locke, Complex ideas
A
- Produce complex ideas in 3 different ways
1. Combining ideas formed by bringing together 2 or more simple ideas
2. Relating ideas: The ideas aren’t string together, we only describe the relationship between them, but they remain seprate
3. Abstracting from ideas: Extracting a common feature shared by many ideas
24
Q
Human Understanding- Locke, Substances
A
- Formed by the minds activity of combining simple ideas
- Results in things that exist independently of anything else
- Ex. Humans, Cows, Tables, Trees
- If we look at any substance such as gold or diamonds, the observable qualities come together to form one complex idea, but Locke claims that we don’t have any grounds for drawing these inferences
25
Q
Human Understanding- Locke, Mode
A
- Formed by abstract simple ideas
- Results in objects that have no independent existence but always exist in association with substances
- Ex. Murder, Cube (concept), Gratitude
26
Q
Critique of Pure Reason- Kant
A
- Kant begins by distinguishing Pure and Empirical Knowledge
- All our knowledge comes from experience, but that just means it begins with experience. That doesn’t mean it all arises out of experience
27
Q
Critique of Pure Reason- Kant, Empirical Knowledge
A
- Made up of what we recieve through impressions and what our already there knowledge supplies from itself (inferences)
- Also comes from experiences and then inferences based off of those experiences
28
Q
Critique of Pure Reason- Kant, a priori
A
A Priori:
- Pure (because there is nothing that comes from experience)
- Knowledge that comes to us independent from experience
- Stuff we just /know/
- Anything that’s thought of as necessary
- Known and justified through reasoning
29
Q
Critique of Pure Reason- Kant, a posteriori
A
A Posteriori
- Empirical
- Its source is experience
- Not found through reasoning
30
Q
Critique of Pure Reason- Kant, parts of statements
A
Subject: What is being discussed (Cats, triangles, etc)
Predicate: What is being said about the subject (Ex. all cats are carnivores carnivoures being the predictate)
31
Q
Critique of Pure Reason- Kant, analytic propositions
A
- Are true by definition
- Not claims about the world, claims about the relations of ideas
- Make no claims beyond the meaning of the subject
- Are about the relationship between the subject and the predicate
- Ex. All triangles have three sides
- they are a priori, as they are true without needing experience to prove it
- EXPLICATIVE
32
Q
Critique of Pure Reason- Kant, Synthetic judgments
A
- Things that are true because of experience
- Predictate is not inherent in the subject (triangles having three sides), but connected to it
- Claims about the world
- Ex. Walmart closing at 11 PM
- We attach one concept to another
- AMPLIATIVE
- Can also be A priori, just not when they come from experience.
- Ex. Every effect has a cause. This is universal and known, but doesn’t come from experience, while also being synthetic because the concept of a cause isn’t contained in the concept of an effect. they are mutually exclusive but synthetically attached
- Theoretical sciences are synthetic judgements
33
Q
Critique of Pure Reason- Kant, general problem of pure reason
A
- The problem is “how are a priori synthetic judgments possible”
- Hume thought the idea of cause and effect was entierly a posteriori (it had to come from experience)
- To Hume, judgments were either a priori and analytic, or a posteriori and synthetic
- Kant disagreed and argued for the existence of a priori synthetic judgments.
34
Q
Traditional Skepticism
A
- Doubts about the truth of something
- Philosophical skepticism relates to doubts about knowledge, primarily: What can we know? and will we ever know completely?
35
Q
Traditional Skepticism about the external world
A
- Our experiences of the external world only comes through our senses. Doubting the external world means doubting our senses
- Descartes was a massive skeptic, doubting everthing exept that he existed. He doubted his senses primarily
36
Q
Traditional Skepticism- Universal Idealism Vs. Limited Idealism
A
Universal Idealism: Everything that exists is either a mind or something whos existence is dependent upon a mind
Limited Idealism: Some (but not all) things are minds or depend on minds for their exsistence
37
Q
Traditional Skepticism- Hume
A
- He asks if there’s evidence to prove existence other than what our senses can directly perceive
- Distingueshes between Matters of Fact and Relations of Ideas
38
Q
Traditional Skepticism- Hume, Matters of Fact and Problem of Induction
A
- Matters of Fact: Also known as claims from experience, aren’t as certain as relations of ideas despite supporting evidence (the fact that it’s INDUCTIVE negates all evidence and inferences from experience)
- Problem of induction has two parts: The Justification of induction as a reliable method of inference, and the evaluation of inductive inference
39
Q
Traditional Skepticism- Hume, Justification Problem
A
- He points out that all inferences that come from experience assume that the future will be the same as the past
- This is an inductive inference based on observing the conjunction of certain events
- This is a circularity problem found in the foundational justification of induction
- But it’s the from the basis of such reasoning that we assume that the sun will rise tomorrow
40
Q
Skepticism- Jennifer Saul, Bias-Related Doubt
A
- She aims to show that implicit bias introduces another form of scepticism into knowledge systems
- Implicit bias is another reason we should be skeptical of out knowledge
- This bias means that we have good reasons to believe that we’re mistaken about a lot, but not necessarily everything
- Bias related doubt is stronger than traditional skepticism because this is doubt that demands action and can actually be changed/fixed
41
Q
Biases in general
A
- We take mental shortcuts when we make desicions and these are biases.
- They don’t have to be good or bad, but can have harmful connotations (duh)
- Biases affect the way we make desicions and act
42
Q
Skepticism- Jennifer Saul, Implicit bias
A
- Implicit bias comes from attitudes and stereotypes towards people that we don’t consciously notice
- Can cause us to judge members of stigmatized groups in negative ways
43
Q
Skepticism- Jennifer Saul, CV Studies
A
- CV study
- Stereotypically Black names vs. Stereotypically white names on CVs.
- “White” names were more likely to be interviewed, hired, offered more money, and just generally more advantages
- The person making these judgments isn’t making them consiously
- It can cause women to be sexist against other women
44
Q
Skepticism- Jennifer Saul, Prestige Bias Study
A
- Institutional affiliatoin has a dramatic effect on the judgments made by reviewers (either positive or negative, or both)
- Published papers were resubmitted to the same journals that published them, but with different names and non-presigious affiliation
- 89% were rejected
45
Q
Skepticism- Jennifer Saul, Race Based Perception
A
- The same ambiguous object is more likely to be perceived as a gun when held by a Black man but more likely to be perceived as something innocent when held by a white man
- The same can be seen with men who appear Muslim vs. men who don’t
46
Q
Skepticism- Jennifer Saul, Epistemological Consequences
A
- Some students receive lower marks and less encouragement
- Some philosophers aren’t getting the jobs they deserve
- There’s excellent work not being published
47
Q
Skepticism, Jennifer Saul, Implications for Everyday “Truths”
A
- We frequently make inaccurate judgments in matters involving identity
- We shouldn’t trust ourselves as inquiers
- Things that we would consider every day truths probably shouldn’t be because of our biases
48
Q
Skepticism- Jennifer Saul but also pre-Saul, general consensus
A
- Before Saul, with armchair philosophy, skepticism was very theoretical and the same as any other thought problem.
- After Saul, the issues (biases) regarding actual tangible things that can be explicitly proven and affect the physical world have been shown and therefore should be adressed
49
Q
Indigenous Epistemology, Responsible Truths
A
- Truths that lack a spiritual, social, or political dimension.
- They’re responsible because they don’t have the potential for the bias mentioned. They’re consiously removed from those biases.
- Defined as “correctly true” “what’s good for you and the community” and “rings true for everybody’s wellbeing”
50
Q
Indigenous Epistemology, Ceremonial Worlds
A
- The worlds/stories within which we live and the worlds/myths that have the power to orient us in life
- An actively constructed portait of the world intended to be responsibly true, something that rings true for everyone’s well-being
- Only truly exist in Indigenous cultures
51
Q
Indigenous Epistemology, Cerimonial Worlds of the West
A
- Cerimonial worlds of the West are diminished in the sense that they’re not intended to be responsibly true worlds or ones that encompas everyone’s well-being
- They tend to be built in accordance with epistemologies of domination and control
- Western science lacks spiritual, social, and political dimensions
- Anomalies in nature are only there as a result of premature conclusions drawn by Western scientific analysis
- Natural regularities are often called Laws of Nature. They’re universal in nature, generally discovered through inductive reasoning
52
Q
Indigenous Epistemology, Legal Realism
Potentially not that important
A
- Formal legal theories that view law as consisting of a body of rules that are definite and coherent. The rules are applied logically and impartially by judges
- They disagree that common law legal rules are neutral and objective
- They disagree that they have definite interpretations
- Judges have the descretion to choose from multiple interpretations of any law
- Judges don’t mechanically apply a rule to facts, their judgments reflect their soci-political preferences
- **Legal realism questions the autonomy of law from the broader socio-political considerations **
- Legal realists hold the view that laws consist largely of myths
- They oppose the claims that laws could be viewed as science
- So judges would be affected by implicit biases
53
Q
Indigenous Epistemology, Pragmaticism
A
- Understanding the role ideas and beliefs play in guiding human interactions with the environment
- According to pragmatists, truth is the name we give to the ideas, beliefs, and theories that work for us, or enable us to effectively satisfy our needs and achiveve our goals
- When we point out the falsity of a claim, we’re pointing out one respect in which the claim fails to satisfy our practical needs
54
Q
Key to Understanding Indigenous Epistemology
A
- It’s ethically informed
- Any truths that emerge in Indigenous worlds are responsible truths
55
Q
Belief Knowledge- Gettier, What is knowledge
A
- What does it require for S to know that P is true?
- Justified true belief: S knows that P is true if S believes that P is true, S is justified in believing P, and P is true
- Knowledge doesn’t equal a justified true belief although they’re similar.
- Gettier suggests that the definition of knowledge is inadequate.
56
Q
Belief, Knowledge & Justification- Gettier, Proof Scenario
A
- Smith and Jones
- Scenario is that Jones will get a job, and he also has 10 coins in his pocket.
- Therefore, the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket
- Gettier claims that through the traditional definition of knowledge, Smith believes that it’s true, he’s justified in believing that, and therefore it’s true, but he doesn’t know that it’s true
- Gettier claims that this is luck based
57
Q
Belief, Knowledge & Justification- Gettier, Gettier’s Strategy
A
- It’s possible for a person to be justified in believing something false
- For any proposition P, if S is justified in believing P, and P entails Q, and S deduces Q from P and accepts Q as a result of this deduction, then S is justified in believing Q
58
Q
Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding- Hume, Matters of Fact
A
- Hume says that matters of fact aren’t as certain as relations of ideas
- The opposite of every matter of fact is still possible because it can never imply a contradiction. Because of this it’s difficult to prove the contrary of a matter of fact to be false. Ex. You can’t prove that “there will be no tomorrow” is false
- He asks if there’s any evidence to prove other existence other than what our senses directly perceive
- Inductive
59
Q
Inquiry Regarding Human Understanding- Hume, Cause and Effect
A
- In all reasoning conserning matters of fact, it’s constantly supposed that there’s a connection between the fact itself and what’s inferred from it
- All reasoning that comes from matters of fact are founded on cause and effect
- Hume says that matters of fact aren’t derived from a priori or through logical means
- They’re based solely on experience by observing the constant conjunction of certain events
- If we are shown an object that we’ve never seen before, we won’t be able to tell what causes and effects are just by looking at it
- We can’t discover by senses alone what causes produced an object and what effects will arise from it
- Our reason, unassisted by experience, also can’t draw inference to do with actual real existence or matter of fact
60
Q
Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding- Hume, Pool Ball Discussion
A
- We assume that we just know that one pool ball would hit another and cause motion, but this is due to habit
- If we had just been put on Earth with no knowledge, we could imagine 100 different outcomes
- Both balls could remain at rest
- The first ball could bounce back in a straight line
- The first ball could bounce off of the second in any direction
- These are all consistent and conceivable
61
Q
Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding- Hume, Cause and Effect again, touches on A Priori
A
- Why is one pool ball scenario more conceivable than the rest?
- All our A priori reasonings won’t be able to show us the foundation for our thinking. Every effect would be a distinct event from its cause. It couldn’t be discovered through the cause
- We shouldn’t assume we’ve determined anything or infered cause or effect without the assistance of observation and experience
62
Q
Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding- Hume, Experience
A
- All our reasonings concerning matter of fact are founded on the relation of cause and effect.
- The foundation of all our reasonings and conclusions concerning that relation is experience
- What is the foundation of all conclusions from experience? “Our senses inform us of the colour, weight, and texture of bread, but neither sense nor reason can ever inform us of those qualities which fit it for the nourishment and support of a human body”
63
Q
Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding- Hume, Stuff About Bread (Inferences?) (Using past events to influence future events?)
A
- The bread we eat nourishes us, but that doesn’t mean that other bread will always nourish us at another time.
- We often use inferences from past experiences to inform future events
64
Q
Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding- Hume, Two Kinds of Reasoning
A
- Inductive
- Deductive
65
Q
Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding- Hume, Inductive Reasoning
A
- Inference from experience/observation/evidence
- To Hume, there’s no logical justification for drawing casual inferences on the basis of induction, we only do it out of custom and habit
- Hume sees causation as a phenomenon of the mind instead of one of cause and events
- You shouldn’t dispute or reject the authority of experience, but other sources hold more authority over it
- Reason is incapable of the inference Custom has
- Matters of Fact are induction
66
Q
Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding- Hume, Deductive Reasoning
A
- The logical relationship between ideas
- Relations of ideas are deductive
67
Q
Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding- Hume, Stuff about a child touching a candle, reasoning and experience
A
- If a child feels the sensation of pain from touching a candle, they won’t touch it again.
- It’s not necessarily led to the conclusion by reasoning or arguments.
- It’s not reasoning that makes us assume that the past resembles the future
- In all reasoning that comes from experience, there’s a step taken in the mind which isn’t supported by argument or understanding
68
Q
Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding- Hume, What is the Secret Third Thing that we use to Process Some Reasoning Stuff, Cause and Effect, Custom
A
- If a person was dropped into the world with well developed faculties of reason and reflection, they would immediately observe a continual succession of objects and events, but they wouldn’t be able to discover anything farther
- At first through reasoning, he wouldn’t be able to reach the idea of cause and effect, since the powers that by which all natural operations are performed never appear to the senses. They also wouldn’t conclude that just because one event occured before another that that is cause and effect
- In order to recognize cause and effect, they would have to have repeated experiences of the constant conjunction of certain events/objects to start inferring one just from seeing the other, but they still wouldn’t know why one event follows another
- They would be convinced that their understanding has no part in the operation, but would continue in the same course of thinking
- This principle is Custom/habit (natural instinct)
- Therefore, after the constant coexistence of two objects (ie. heat and flame) we are taught by custom alone to expect one from the other
- Reason is incapable of this inference
- Only custom has the power to infer something new from observing something over and over
- This is what makes our experiences useful to us
69
Q
Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding- Hume, Conclusion?
A
- All belief of matter of fact or real existence comes from an object that is present to the memory or senses, and a connection between that and another object
- Ex. love and hate as a reaction to things. Those operations come from natural instincs, which no reasoning or process of the thought or understanding can produce
70
Q
Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding- Hume, Imagination Vs. Belief
A
- We can imagine a human head on the body of a horse but we don’t have the power to believe that it’s existed
- That’s imagination
- Belief is nothing but a more vivid, lively, forcible, firm, steady conception of an object, than what the imagination alone is ever able to attain
- Belief is something felt by the mind
71
Q
Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding- Hume, Skeptical Solution of the Doubts
A
- Humes explination of how we draw casual inferences
- We don’t draw them using reason
- Custom is how we draw casual inferences
- It’s a skeptical solution because it’s compatible with saying that we don’t have any reason for drawing these inferences
72
Q
Science: Conjectures and Refutations- Popper, Science vs. Pseudo-Science
A
- Popper wasn’t satisfied with the view that “science is distinguished from pseudo-science by its empirical method (which is inductive), proceeding from observation or experiment”
- He thought that the distinction should be between genuinely empirical methods and non-empirical methods because there are methods that appeal to observation and experiment, but don’t reach scientific standards
73
Q
Science: Conjectures and Refutations- Popper, Examples of Pseudo-Science
A
- Examples of theories that appeal to observation/experiment but don’t reach scientific standards
- Astrology, Marx’s theory of history, psycho-analysis, Adlers “individual psychology”
- People trust those theories because they seemed to explain a lot. There was also supporting evidence for them everywhere
- People who didn’t see the truth in the theories obviously didn’t want to see it (manifest truths)
- Even evidence against the theories could be twisted to fit the theories. Popper saw this as a weakness
- He also thought these theories were different from things such as Einstines gravitational theory
74
Q
Science: Conjectures and Refutations- Popper, Induction Vs. Deduction
A
- Induction: Inference from experience/observation/evidence
- Deduction: Inferes based on the logical relationship between ideas
75
Q
Science: Conjectures and Refutations- Popper, Hume stuff, lots of induction
A
- Hume identified two kinds of human reasoning: Relations of ideas and Matters of fact
- Hume says relations of ideas are “intuitively or demosntratively certain” and cites geometry, algebra and math
- He says that Matters of fact aren’t as certain as relations of ideas even if we have a lot of supporting evidence
- Induction comprises ampliative inferences from experience (induction aplifies the inferences we draw from experience)
- Inferences assume that the future will resemble the past, but that itself is inductive on the basis of observing the regular function of certain events
- We justify induction using induction. This is the circularity problem in the justification of induction, so there’s no logical justification for drawing inferences on the basis of induction
76
Q
Science: Conjectures and Refutations- Popper, Poppers method for verifying scientific claims (7)
A
- It’s easy to obtain confirmations for nearly every theory if we look for them. Hypothesis rely solely upon deductive consequences so don’t even mention induction
- Confirmations should only count if they’re the result of risky predictions. If we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory
- Every good scientific theory is a prohibition. It forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is
- A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is nonscientific. Irrifutability isn’t a virtue of a theory, but a vice.
- Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it or to refute it. Testability is falsifability, but there are degrees of testibility. Some theories are more testable because they take more risks
- Confirming evidence shouldn’t count except when it’s the result of a genuine test of the theory
- Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers. They introduce ad hoc hypothesis to prop up the theory
- Overall, the criteria for the scientific status of a theory is its falsafibility/testability
77
Q
Science: Conjectures and Refutations- Popper, On Humes problem of Induction
A
- He credits Hume for exposing the problem of induction
- No logic supports the basis of induction (that the future will resemble the past)
- Popper isn’t satisfied with Humes “psychological” explanation that our belief that the future will resemble the past comes from customs.
- Popper believed that that belief is in itself inductive
- He argues that custom is itself a product of repitition, because we call a behaviour a habit if it’s repeated
78
Q
Science: Conjectures and Refutations- Popper, fixing Humes argument
A
- He decides to replace induction with the following view “without waiting, passively, for repititions to impress or impose regularities upon us, we actively try to impose regularities upon the world.” and “We try to discover similarities in it, and to interpret it in terms of laws invented by us.”
- Without waiting for premises, we jump to conclusions, which we may drop later if given contrary evidence
- A theory of trial and error, of conjectures and refutations
- Therefore, “our attempts to force interpretations upon the world were logically prior to the observation of similarities.”
79
Q
Science: Conjectures and Refutations- Popper, Scientific theories
A
- Popper thought the same procedure (trial and error) should be applied to science as well
- He also thought that scientific theories weren’t the digest of observations, but that they were inventions put forth to trial to be tested for errors.
- Every organism has inborn reactions or responses (biases) and among them, responses adapted to impending events. These responses could be called expectations without implying that these expectations are consious.
80
Q
Science: Conjectures and Refutations- Popper, Inborn Knowledge
A
- Because of the close relation of expectation and knowledge, we could discuss a reasonable sense of “inborn knowledge.”
- This knowledge isn’t valid A priori
- We’re born with expectations (knowledge) which, although not valid A priori, is still prior to all observational experience
- One of the most important expectations is the expectation of finding a regularity (Custom)
81
Q
Science: Conjectures and Refutations- Popper, Induction again
A
- The success of science isn’t based on the rules of induction, but depends on luck, ingenuity, and the purely deductive rules of critical argument
82
Q
Science: Conjectures and Refutations- Popper, His Summary
A
- Induction is an inference based on many observations. This is a myth. It’s neither a psychological fact, nor a fact of ordinary life, nor one of scientific proceedure
- The actual procedure of science is to operate with conjectures. To jump to conclusions, often after one single observation
- Repeated observations and experiments function inscience as tests of our conjecture or hypothesis
- The mistaken belief in induction is forfited by the need for a criteria of demacation which is traditionally, but incorrectly, believed that only the inductive method can provide.
- The conception of such an inductive method, like the criteria of verifiability, implies a faulty demarcation
- None of this is altered in the least if we say that induction makes theories only probably rather than certain
