Philosophy of science Flashcards
Empiricism. To what extent (степени) Adlers theory is empirical science or not?
Empiricism - a philosophical approach that emphasizes the importance of experience, observation, and evidence in acquiring (приобретении) knowldege. Empiricists believe that knowledge is acquired through observation, experimentation, and data collection, rather than through intuition or faith.
Empiricist conception of science: sensory experience (опыт, основанный на чувствах) is the source (источник) of all knowledge.
About empiricism:
1. scientific experimentation and testing confirm (подтверждают) or falsify hypothesis
2. characters of method of science (характерные черты науки в соответствии с эмпиризмом):
- observation
- generalization (обобщение): induction, formulation of a scientific theory, predictions based on those theories.
3. goal: observe a scenario (ситуация) according to it generalize a natural law (обобщение естесственной закономерности)
4. all knowledge is based on experience. From the individual experiences is concluded a generalized law (выводится обобщенная закономерность)
5. a form of natural science. According to empiricism, all knowledge comes from experience, this learning is called posteriori
6. one of the main approaches to understand science and the basis of scientific revolution
7. one of the most famous empiricists is philosopher John Locke. He argued that the mind at birth is a blank slate (tabula rasa), upon which experience writes (разум при рождении человека - чистый лист, на который записывается опыт)
Alfred Adler developed (разработал) the individual psychology, which is based on observations and interviews with many clients. He told that people have an inferiority complex (комплекс неполноценности) that they try to overcome through setting up goals (преодолеть с помощью постановки целей) and using maximum potential.
Is Adler’s science is an empirical science or not? From the one hand, yes. He based his theory on observations from his own experience and concluded through induction a generalized theory (с помощью индукции пришел к обобщенной теории).
From the other hand, no because:
1. Adlers main goal is treating people mentally instead of concluding a science (главная цель - лечить людей ментально вместо того, чтобы делать выводы о науке) and getting closer to the truth (приблизиться к правде)
2. Adler started his observations with assumptions (предположений) instead of a mind set of tabula rasa (а не с мышления табула раса)
Tabula rasa
philosophical idea that people are born with the mind - a blank slate without any innate knowledge or predispositions (рождаются с разумом - чистым листом без врожденных знаний или предрасположенностей).
According to this philosophical idea, all knowledge and behavior is learned through experience and perception.
A mindset of tabula rasa: approach new situations with an open mind, without preconceptions and assumptions based on past experience or existing beliefs (без предубеждений и предположений, основанных на прошлом опыте или существующих убеждениях).
The characteristic of science according to Popper: The principle of falsifiability. The Model of conjectures and refutations. Why does Popper dream Psychoanalitical theories unscientific?
is known for his theory of demarcation (разделение). There is a distinction between science and non-science. Scientific theories should be falsifiable: they are capable of being tested and potentially proven false through empirical evidence. A scientific theory should make specific and testable predictions that can be verified or falsified through experimentation or observation. If a theory is not falsifiable, then it cannot be tested or disproved, and therefore it is not scientific.
Theory of demarcation later was used to critique non-scientific theories: astrology, mysticism. Theory of demarcation was criticized cause it’s not always clear what appropriate criteria for demarcation should be.
Popper:
1. argued that scientists can’t be naive and believe everything that has been said, instead they have to be critical and question (подвергать сомнению) and rethink everything
1. believed that falsifiability was the key criterion for distinguishing science from non-science because it allows to test and improve scientific theories through empirical observation and experimentation (это определение).
3. divided existing theories
(существующие теории) into 2 categories based on falsifiability:
- theories of Einstein and Newton are scientific cause they are falsifiable: they have limits in there theories and don’t try to explain everything, they make specific predictions about the behavior of physical objects that can be tested through observation and experimentation. If these predictions turned out to be false, the theories can be rejected or modified (забракованы или изменены).
- theories of Marx, Freud’s psychoanalytical theory, and Adler’s individual theory are non-scientific cause they try to explain everything and it is impossible to falsify and refute them. Also, their theories are not falsifiable: not capable of being tested through empirical observation and experimentation cause they don’t do predictions that can be tested. Instead, non-scientific theories are based on subjective interpretations of human behavior, which can’t be empirically tested.
4. believed that all theories need to be falsified through refutation (опровержение) to understand if theory is scientific or not. Therefore, the theory is scientific till it was refuted, after has to be dropped (отброшена) or modified with new evidence. Scientific theories should have limits - shouldn’t try to explain everything and make specific predictions.
5. The model of conjectures (предположений) and refutation says that we need to make risky predictions and try to falsify (test) them, if they are refuted, they dropped or modified. If they remain, they are strengthened (усиливается).
6. According to Popper, a scientific theory can be both false and scientific.
Why Popper critisized empiricism?
Empiricism doesn’t enable (не дает нам возможности) us to distinguish between the science and pseudoscience. He named this problem the demarcation problem.
He argued that scientific theories can’t be verified (проверены) through empirical observation. The key feature (свойство) of scientific investigation is not the accumulation (накопление) of evidence to support a theory, but testing a theory by attempting to refute it through observation and experimentation.
The scientific method should be based on conjecture (предположениях) and refutation, rather than induction and verification (проверке).
Popper was critical of the empiricist approach because he believed that it was too narrow and failed to account for the limitations of induction (не учитывал ограничений индукции). According to Popper, induction is a subjective process, because it relies on the interpretation of observations (основывается на интерпретации наблюдений) and the conclusions from these observations are uncertain (неопределенны) and open to challenge (могут быть оспорены). Popper argued that science should not be based on induction, but rather on falsifiability, which allows scientific theories to be tested and potentially rejected (отвергнута) based on empirical evidence.
Induction and the problem of Induction. Popper’s solution of this problem. (We don’t learn via induction)
Induction - the process of drawing conclusions based on observations or experiences. In other words, when out of our own experience and observations a theory is generalized (на основе нашего опыта мы обобщаем теорию).
Example: every crow that person has seen was black. Inductive reasoning (рассуждение): all crows are black. The conclusion is based on the specific observations of individual (отдельными) crows, and the person generalizes his observations to a theory. In fact, it is possible that many crows are not black. The problem of induction is that we can’t make a conclusion based only on out limited observations.
Philosopher David Hume formulated the induction problem. He argued that we can’t logically make a conclusion from particular (конкретных) observations to general conclusions cause there is no necessary connection between them (между ними нет необходимой связи).
Popper didn’t provide a solution to the problem of induction - difficulty in logically justifying (обоснования) the generalization of observations to make predictions about the future (трудности логического обоснования обобщения наблюдений для составления прогнозов о будущем).
According to Popper, induction is a subjective process, because it focuses on the observations, and the conclusions that are drawn from these observations are uncertain and open to be refuted.
Popper concluded that people don’t learn via induction, but through conjecture (предположение) and refutations - главная мысль. Model of conjecture and refutations:
1. form a falsifiable theory
2. formulate expected observations based on this theory
3. conduct “dangerous” experiment.
If results don’t fit (не соответствуют) the prediction, the theory is falsified and must be replaced.
Popper argued that it is incorrect to conclude a law based on own experience cause we can’t experience everything and don’t have an access to all knowledge. He gave an example of swans: for a long time people believed that all swans are white cause only white swans were observed in Europe. This belief was based on induction. Later this theory was falsified when people saw black swans in Australia. This discovery showed that the generalization was false, and it was rejected (отвергнуто).
Popper used this example to argue that science should not be based on induction, but rather on falsifiability, which allows scientific theories to be objectively tested and potentially rejected based on empirical data. He added that scientists should try to disprove (опровергнуть) a theory that all swans are white by searching a swan, which is not white. If they found him, it would refute this theory.
Popper’s philosophy is based on the idea that scientific theories can never be proven true (истинность научных теорий никогда не может быть доказана), but they can be falsified.
Why science is considered a good thing according to Popper.
Science is a good thing because scientific theories can be tested and potentially proven false. This allows for a constant process of refinement and improvement (позволяет осуществлять постоянный процесс доработки и совершенствования). This criterion for scientific knowledge is based on the principle of falsifiability. So, science is good because it’s rational and it provides a way to get closer to truth and away from falsities (она рациональна и дает способ приблизиться к истине и уйти от лжи).
How does a theory such as Adler’s individual psychology differ from modern physics
- Modern physics is a natural science which we can measure, it is objective. The main goal: come to the truth of science. It tries to understand the world and define it with rules.
Adler’s individual psychology is subjective cause it deals (имеет дело) with many people and focuses on the individual’s subjective experiences and perceptions. - The goal of the individual psychology isn’t scientific as in physics (как в физике), but, instead, individual psychology focuses on curing people.
- In physics accurate (точные) predictions can be made while (в то время, как) in Adler’s theory predictions are based on assumptions, that is not scientific.
- Adler’s theory has perfect explanatory power (обладает совершенной объяснительной силой) while modern physics has knowledge in a certain field and doesn’t try to explain everything, tries to explain just very specific things.
Characters of science according to Kuhn, and the characters of its main stages (персонажи ее основных этапов): pre-paradigmatic, normal science, anomaly, crisis, revolution.
The shift characteristic of scientific revolutions (сдвиг, характерный для научных революций).
Thomas Kuhn had much softer approach to science than Popper. According to Kuhn, scientists are dogmatic puzzle solvers (догматичные решатели головоломок) that work on consensus paradigms (работают на основе консенсусных парадигм).
A paradigm - universally recognized scientific achievements (общепризнанные научные достижения) that for a period of time provide methods and solutions to a community of practitioners (в течение определенного периода времени предоставляют методы и решения сообществу практиков).
Kuhn argued that science is a social process that is shaped (формируется) by historical and cultural factors.
4/5 stages of science:
1. pre-paradigmatic stage: many schools had different approach, data was collected randomly (данные собирались случайным образом). When these schools agree to one consensus (приходят к единому консенсусу) the stage 2 of normal science starts. Pre-paragmatic stage isn’t part of the cycle (не является частью цикла). This stage occurs only in the beginning of the formation of the discipline (в начале формирования дисциплины), then science moves from paradigm to paradigm via anomalies - crisis - revolution.
2. normal science - the phase where there is one consensus/paradigm. This enables (позволяет) scientists to be dogmatic (принимающий учение в качестве абсолютно достоверного без анализа, не допуская изменений), they don’t need to be critical about frameworks (основы, базы) and use the paradigm from puzzle solving.
3. Anomaly. After working with the paradigm for a while, something, for example, phenomenon or observation happens that the paradigm can’t explain - this is what we call anomaly. Usually, this causes distress (стресс) inside the paradigm.
4. Crisis. Researchers found a problem in their theory “hit a roadblock” (натолкнулись на препятствие).
Hitting a roadblock may happen when new evidence is discovered that contradicts (противоречит) the theory or when the theory fails to predict a certain outcome (теория не в состоянии предсказать определенный результат).
Now researches have 2 options:
1). they can solve a problem by, for example, changing something small, and, therefore (следовательно), resolve (разрешить) the crisis and can go back to normal science
2). they need to enter (ступить) the last stage - revolution, in which they shift (переходят, переключаются) to a new paradigm and drop (отбрасывают) their old theory.
Anomalies and crisis can be seen (могут рассматриваться) as a trigger for a scientific revolution, but they are not a guarantee of it. The outcome of a crisis depends:
- on the ability of scientists to develop a new paradigm that can better explain the anomalies;
- on the willingness (готовность) of the scientific community to adopt a new paradigm.
For solving the crisis it’s not necessarily to solve the anomalies - they can be shelved (отложены) because of lack of resources or motivation to solve the anomalies (устранения аномалий), a belief that the anomalies are not important or they can be explained by future achievements in the dominant paradigm.
5. revolution: the stage where a new paradigm replaces the old one. New scientists move to the new paradigm, some older scientists join them.
This shift (сдвиг) and paradigms in general allow a place for discussion (и парадигмы в целом предоставляют место для дискуссий), and has a framework for enabling discussions (и у них есть база, допускающая дискуссии). It leads to the ability to revolutionize to more able paradigms (это приводит к способности кардинально измениться в сторону более эффективных парадигмам).
The shift characteristic of scientific revolutions (сдвиг, характерный для научных революций):
1). a new paradigm replaces the old
2). new scientists appear and some older scientists shift
3). a new phase of normal science begins.
With Kuhns method science is growing gradually and through revolutions (благодаря методу Куна наука развивается постепенно и через революции). It is not anymore about differentiating (различием) between science and pseudoscience and only based on critical thinking (основанном только на критическом мышлении) like in Popper, but more about the improving and learning through each other (скорее о совершенствовании и обучении друг через друга).
Distinction between process during normal science and paradigm shift (смены парадигмы).
During normal science we build and expand knowledge that are exist in a particular field. Scientists can make accurate measurements and observations (точные измерения и наблюдения), develop new technologies, and test theories. All of these allows to understand the natural world deeper and can lead to technological innovations.
Paradigm shift leads to the major breakthroughs (серьезным прорывам) and fundamentally new ways of thinking about a particular field of study. When a new paradigm is adopted, it leads to new ways of research and to different understanding of the natural world.
The main idea of it: normal science provides constant and gradual accumulation of knowledge (постоянное и постепенное накопление знаний), while paradigm shift leads to revolutionary changes in the way we understand the world.
The meaning of a paradigm. The potential for Kuhn’s explanation for psychology and its history.
A paradigm - universally recognized scientific achievements that for a period of time which provide methods and solutions to a community of practitioners (предоставляет методы и решениия сообществу практиков).
According to Kuhn, all the branches of psychology can coexist and be all scientific.
Aristotel and Plato: the brain controls the body - this was one paradigm. After that Descartes: mind controls consciousness and then body actualizes it - another paradigm. Also, all the different branches of psychology like experimental psychology (which differentiates philosophy from psychology), behavior psychology (concentrates on personalities), psychoanalytical theories (deals with the unconsciousness and the defense mechanism), and neuroscience (investigates the brain functions).
Kuhn’s approach is good for psychology because all those branches are scientifically now instead of, for example, only neuroscience, which is according to Popper.
Normal science
According to Kuhn, normal science is an important part of the scientific process because it provides the stability and continuity (стабильность и непрерывность) that are needed for scientific progress.
Characteristics of normal science:
1. a shared (общая) paradigm: normal science is conducted within the context of a shared paradigm or set of assumptions (набора предположений), concepts, and methods that provide a framework (основу, базу) for scientific research. Scientists work in the same paradigm, they have a common vocabulary, goals and methods.
2. puzzle-solving: normal science is firstly concerned with puzzle-solvings in the context of the shared paradigm. Scientists refine (улучшают) and extend the existing paradigm by solving specific problems and filling in gaps in knowledge.
3. presuppositions (предположения) and values: normal science is guided (руководствуется) by a set of presuppositions and values that are often implicit (неявные) rather than explicit (явные). These presuppositions and values include assumptions about what counts (что считается) as evidence, what methods are appropriate, and what goals are worth pursuing (к каким целям стоит стремиться).
4. Anomalies: normal science isn’t immune (не застрахована от аномалий) to anomalies or observations that can’t be explained in the existing paradigm. However, these anomalies are often ignored or explained rather than used to challenge the existing paradigm (а не используются для того, чтобы бросить вызов существующей парадигме).
5. scientific community: normal science is conducted (проводится) within a community of scientists who are in the same paradigm. The community provides a framework for collaborations and validations (подтверждения) of scientific results (научных результатов).
Reasons for Descartes doubt of his knowledge. How does he doubt it in general, and in detail: sense argument (аргумент со стороны здравого смысоа), dream argument (аргумент со стороны мечты), evil demon (злой демон). Why does he move from one argument to another?
The mind body problem. Descartes attempt to solve it (interactive Dualism). Physicalism. Physicalism/ reductionism attempt to solve the mind body problem (reduction, identification). The problem in these solutions.
Descartes’s doubt in the material world helped him come to the conclusion that his own existence as a thinking mind (мыслящего разума) can’t be doubted.
The mind-body problem - philosophical issue that concerns the relationship between mind and body and how can non-physical
He made a distinction between mind and body to define each one separately.
Mind - thinking thing that is capable to perform mental activities. This is my inner world, only I have an access to it. I know my mind better than anyone.
Body - something that occupies the space for a period of time, it can be moved or altered. Every material object is a body.
Descartes’s Cogito created the base of the modern distinction between mind and body.
Descartes’s approach is called Dualism: considers people as complex entities that consist of 2 components: physical body and mental mind.
Interactive dualism claims that our mind and body are separate entities that interact to produce conscious experiences. He proposed interactive dualism as the solution to the mind-body problem.
Descartes’s solution to the mind-body interaction: place of interaction in pineal gland between two hemispheres - where thoughts appear. But this solution is problematic because mind is not physical and can’t meet with the body in any physical place.
Different approaches to the mind-body problem:
Physicalism (materialism) - approach that claims that only thing that exist is matter.
Physicalism - approach that claims that everything that exists is physical, and that mental states, thoughts, consciousness can be reduced to physical processes. Universe is fundamentally physical, mental states are caused by physical processes in the brain.
Thomas Nagel: materialism - the view that people consist of physical matter, and their mental states are physical states of their brain. This assumption is a base much on neuroscience:
There is no non-material aspect to humans that can’t be reduced to matter - reductionism.
Nagel criticized the physicalist approach.
