Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

FIL 155 > Philosophy Of Science > Flashcards

Philosophy Of Science Flashcards

1
Q

What is science

A

A discipline that arrives at a conclusion through evidence that can be scientifically proven, not based on ideologies or witchcraft. Needs to follow a particular method - justified - truth - belief

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Examples of change in science

A

Move from Newtonian physics to Einstein’s theory of relativity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Deduction vs induction - who created

A

Deduction - Aristotle

induction - Francis bacon

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is deduction

A

Valid argument, true premises, therefore conclusions must be true

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What’re the problems of deduction

A

Does not add new information to the conclusion, it just uses given information already to make a conclusion
- therefore all statements & conclusion need to match & be true always

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Why is deduction replaced with induction in science

A

Science: primarily experimentation & data gathering arriving at knowledge through sense experiences of the would rather than pure reason
- evidence = foundation of science

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What is induction

A

Induction begins from observations through mass information to attain truth

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

How is induction used as a method of science

A

Induction makes particular claims, drawing general conclusions through experimentation (which happens repeatedly through many processes & scientists).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What does induction do, give eg. Of induction

A

Induction draws from similarities in certain instances to draw a general conclusion

Eg.) all mammals breastfeed their young, Laura is a mammal, Laura will breastfeed her young

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What’ve the characteristics of observation

A

• Must not be influenced by prejudice and preconception
• must be based on sensory experiences
• must not be restricted to a few options, but a lot more observations to amount to a scientific theory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Who proposed the problem of induction

A

David Hume

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Distinguish between relations of ideas & matter of fact with examples

A

Relations of ideas = propositions stemming from our concepts & ideas
Eg) bachelors ave unmarried men; a triangle has 3 sides

Matter of fact = ideas beyond our concepts but adds to knowledge we have, telling us something informative about the world
Eg) CPT is in South Africa, UP is an strike

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What did Hume say about reasoning

A

All reasoning beyond past & present experiences is based on cause & effect

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Problems with induction

A

• Don’t have logical relation
• adds new information to the conclusion that we know nothing about or that we are uncertain about. For example, we only observed limited objects that experience gravity, not all objects on earth, but the conclusion now includes all objects that exist & says they experience gravity even though we didn’t observe all objects experiencing gravity
(Therefore if the arguments are true, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the conclusion will be true, or that the next event will have the same outcome as the previous one)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What is abduction and an example

A

Making an inference to the best possible explanation; which explanation is the best explanation amongst many sets of explanation
- used to ascertain evidence
Eg) Josh has lung cancer, josh smokes, Josh’s lung cancer might be caused by smoking - there are other possible explanations: genes, secondary smoke, etc

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Empiricism vs Rationalism

A

• Empiricism
- knowledge comes primarily from the sense
- after experience
- relates to induction (matters of fact)
- ie: for you to have knowledge about something, you have to have prior experience of that thing
Eg) to know that Mt Kilimanjaro is the tallest mountain in Africa, someone checked that there are no other taller mountains in Africa, we can’t know this info from logic clan change to false if a taller mountain is found in Africa)

• Rationalism
- knowledge comes primarily from reason
- before reason
- relates to deduction (relation of ideas)
- ie: il you’ve asked how many sides a triangle has, you’d immediately say 3 (you don’t need to find a triangle to count-it is basic knowledge)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What is an argument

A

Series of connected statements that logically support a conclusion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What is contiguity

A

Close in space or time, or happen at the same space & time

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Problem of induction: casualty

A
  • Cause occurs before an effect but we can’t observe cause
  • we see a constant relation between events, but experience no necessary connection → either a matter of fact or relation idea, only constant conjunction

• there is no region to believe that the past will resemble the future or that the would is uniform

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Problem of induction: solutions

A
  • Cannot use an inductive argument to prove an inductive argument (circular reasoning)
  • eg) can’t say that induction works because it has always worked in the past
  • argument assumes what it is trying to prove

• we can agree that induction is unreliable, & use deduction via falsification instead

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Problem of induction: conclusions

A
  • If what makes science such a privileged discipline (induction) then science doesn’t seem to have a strong foundation at all → because all its theories could turn out to be false
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Who proposed falsification

A

Karl Popper

23
Q

What was falsification proposed as

A

An alternative to classical inductivism

24
Q

What ave 2 types of justification

A
  1. Logical positivism - data verifies theories
  2. Falsification - data falsifies theories
25
Q

What distinguishes science from other fields, like philosophy

A

Verifiability - science can be verified

26
Q

Problems with logical positivism

A

Statements are not verified in isolation, due to theory-ladeness of observations

Eg) :
1. Einstein includes many assumptions about movements of the planets & stars, etc
- how many verifications are needed → induction problem

27
Q

What did Karl Popper do

A

• Replaced classical inductivism with empirical falsification
• suggested that we rather try to falsify (disprove) theories rather than verify (prove) them to be correct → the move we fail to falsify a theory, the more high belief in the theory we can have (corroboration)

28
Q

Why does Popper reject verificationism

A
  • Theories that aren’t scientific but appear to be may get verified
  • one of the criteria for true science is that it produces falsifiable statements
  • Popper tried to distinguish between true science & pseudoscience (theories that try to Nicole scientific)
29
Q

Give 3 examples of non-falsifiable statements & explain why

A

1.it is either raining or hot raining
- a basic experiment that doesn’t need to be experimented on

  1. Horoscope readings
    - too vague & can easily apply to any situation which might trick one into believing it’s an accurate prediction
  2. An omnipotent non-material deity exists
    - not pseudoscience, rather theological
30
Q

Give 3 examples of falsifiable statements & explain why

A
  1. All swans are white
    - we can always find a black one
  2. Light will bend around heavy objects
    - can be tested upon experiment to check if it is false
  3. Newton’s gravitational laws
    - can be tested upon experiment to check it it is false
31
Q

How does science proceed

A

• Does not set out to confirm a hypothesis by inductive support

Rather:
• A theory is developed
• predictions are deduced from that theory
• predictions are tested through experimentation
• if it is falsified - the theory is abandoned
• if it is not falsified - the theory must be subjected to even more tests

32
Q

What is a disadvantage of science proceeding with falsification

A

Good theories may be abandoned due to an error in the experimentation setup

33
Q

What are the implications of falsification

A

• More falsifiable statements a theory has, that are not falsified, the better
• No verification/ confirmation - only corroboration
• theories = survival of the fittest

34
Q

List 4 objections to falsification

A
  1. Theory laden characteristic of observations
    - hypotheses aren’t tested in isolation
  2. Complexity of realistic test situations
    - eg) it all swans are while, vs a planet being visible at a certain time
  3. If we cannot see it, what is false?
  4. Falsification as the method of science seems inadequate on historical grounds
35
Q

What book did Thomas Kuhn write & what is the main thesis

A

The structure of scientific revolution (1962) - main thesis is that science is characterised by a period of stable development & growth due to revisions & revolutions

36
Q

What does Thomas Kuhn argue

A

Logical positivism is out of touch with history of science, the positivist model is not how science works - science is cyclical, not linear

37
Q

Describe the Kuhn cycle

A
  1. Pre-science: Move from prescientific immaturity to stable normal science
  2. Normal science: is structured around paradigms (patterns)
  3. Model drift: anomalies advise that don’t fit in current paradigms (ie falsification - according to Popper)
  4. Model crisis: anomalies are ignored in normal science, but if there is too many of them to lead to a crisis then there will be a revolution - current paradigm is abandoned
  5. Paradigm shift: revolutionary science becomes normal science
  6. New crisis: the new paradigm now becomes the normal science until it also has too many anomalies
38
Q

What is a paradigm (Kuhn)

A

General theoretical assumptions & laws and the techniques for their application that the members of a particular scientific community adopt

39
Q

What is the prescientific stage

A

Stage during which we only have an undeveloped scientific idea - still developing their scope, aims, methods, ontology, and ave primarily exploratory

40
Q

What is ontology

A

Subbranch of metaphysics - what does this new theory consider al real

41
Q

When does a theory become normal science

A

Once the aims, methods, etc have been developed & accepted

42
Q

What is the aim of normal science

A

Aim at puzzle solving, rather than at novelties (quality of being new)

43
Q

What does normal science do

A

• Adds scope & precision of current paradigm
• theory has developed & there are ways to work with it
• puzzles (ie solvable challenges) are seen as anomalies rather than as falsifications of a paradigm
• puzzles can only be solved in certain ways → the current paradigm

44
Q

What rules is normal science governed by

A

• Nature: what the laws of physics & chemistry expect the would to be like
- normal science assumes these laws to be true
- Newtonian paradigm: Newton’s laws of motion & classical electromagnetic theory: Maxwell’s equations

• instrumentation: what preferred instruments of measurement are to be used
- eg) hadron collider, quantum instruments
- instrumentation necessary for bringing the laws of the paradigm to bear on the real world will also be included in the paradigm (telescopes for Newtonian physics in astronomy & how to use it)

• metaphysics/ontology: what kinds of entities do & do not exist
- eg) Descartes view from 1630’s that there is only shaped matter in motion

• methodology: what fundamental scientific laws and explanations should look like
- eg) laws & theories must specify corpuscular motion & interaction

45
Q

What is the relationship between normal science & paradigms

A

• Kuhn argued that normal scientific research programmes proceed according to a scientific paradigm
• paradigms set the goals, rules, methodological standards & values for normal science
• paradigms are what set out the puzzles that normal science needs to solve & how they should go about solving them

46
Q

Define scientific revolutions

A

Non-cumulative developmental episodes during which an older paradigm is replaced by an incompatible new one

47
Q

When is there a revolution

A

When an existing paradigm has ceased to function adequately

48
Q

Difference between revolutionary science & normal science

A

revolutionary science - new paradigm replaces current one

normal science - cumulative, new paradigms add on top of current ones

49
Q

What does it mean by paradigms are incommensurable

A

They cannot be compared - therefore changing paradigms is not due to one paradigm being better than the other

50
Q

Example of revolutionary science

A

• For centuries astronomers used a geocentric model of the solar system for understanding planetary movement & for making predictions
• Ptolemy developed the most sophisticated model of geocentrism (old paradigm)
• Copernicus’ heliocentric model (new paradigm) was a completely new paradigm in astronomy, out of proportion with the Ptolemaic version

51
Q

Does Kuhn believe in cumulative science

A

No, new theory = destruction of the old one

Kuhn says that Copernicus was not building on Ptolemy’s work, but rather that they are fundamentally incompatible

52
Q

Define incommensurable theories/terms & non-cumulative scientific revolution

A

Incommensurable theories/terms - nothing can be compared between the two

non-cumulative scientific revolution - the knowledge offered by a new paradigm does not contribute or add to an earlier paradigms body of knowledge

53
Q

Kuhn’s conclusions

A
  1. Changing from one paradigm to another cannot be adjudicated by appealing to:
    - one paradigm’s superior ability to account for some phenomena (because paradigms are incommensurable)
    - nor to a growth in scientific knowledge (scientific change is non-cumulative)
    → therefore a scientific paradigm can only be replaced a new paradigm completely
  2. This is what Kuhn means by a “paradigm shift”
    - the new paradigm sets the new aims, methods, puzzles… Etc for normal science going forward

FIL 155 (1 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions