Philosophy of science

Question 1

Why is there a Wittgenstein 1 and 2

Answer 1

He wrote one philosophical book, caused a revolution, left in solitude, came back wrote a contrasting other and started another revolution

Question 2

Who was Russel to Wittgenstein?

Answer 2

A mentor and trainer and because Wittgenstein was so unstable he looks after him

Question 3

Explain Russel’s Paradox

Answer 3

In set theory in which people viewed stuff in terms of mathematical sets; what contained what, would the set which contains all sets that does not contain themselves contain itself? Problematic for logic because it was possible for a statement to be true and untrue at the same time which can be used to prove anything. This made logic unstable

Question 4

How did Witt. tackle this paradox?

Answer 4

Concludes that the paradox stems from a lack of clarity in what is meaningful. He believes that this is not meaningful and set out to define meaning

Question 5

What did Witt. write in his book while he was a prisoner of war? What was the name of this book?

Answer 5

The Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus; 7 statements attempting to logically define what is meaningful

1. The world is everything that is the case
2. What is the case, the fact, is the existence of states of affairs
3. The logical picture of the facts is the thought
4. The thought is a meaningful proposition
5. A proposition is a truth-function of elementary propositions
6. The general form of a truth-function is : [𝑝,𝜉,𝑁(𝜉)]. This is the general form of a proposition.
7. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

Question 6

How did he explain away russel’s paradox using this Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus?

Answer 6

The world is the totality of facts (a fact is an existing state of affairs). Elementary facts are indivisible and independent of each other (logical atomism). Complex facts are a combination of elementary facts (constituents). All facts together constitute the world: “all that is the case”

A thought or statement expresses a possible state of affairs in this world. That state of affairs is the meaning of the thought. If the state of affairs “depicted” by the thought does occur, then the thought is true (picture theory of truth). If that state of affairs does not occur, then the thought is not true (but it is meaningful)

Question 7

When is a statement not meaningful?

Answer 7

When they don’t depict a possible state of affairs e.g aesthetics, ethics

Question 8

In the 1920s, a discussion group was set up in Vienna to base philosophy on science and logic. This Wiener Kreis (Vienna Circle)consists of scientists, mathematicians and philosophers. Wittgenstein’s tractatus has enormous impact on this reading group. With Wittgenstein in their hands, who do they plan to attack and what do they call themselves

Answer 8

The logical positivists plan to attack on traditional ‘vague’ philosophy with meaning

Question 9

What is meant by the linguistic turn in philosophy?

Answer 9

The mind has been drawn into the domain of natural science; what is still the domain of philosophy?Philosophy is given a new purpose, the clarification of language, and the assessment of which sentences are meaningfulThis is a revolution in philosophy “philosophical questions are questions of language”

Question 10

What comes of the Vienna circle?

Answer 10

The manifesto “The scientific world-conception of the Vienna Circle” starts philosophy of science as a separate philosophical discipline•It deeply marks thinking about science –especially in psychology. One of the most influential pieces in history

Question 11

Explain how the concluded claims could be meaningful? (2)

Answer 11

Either by being logical or empirical.

Logical claims were verifiable by looking at their form (i.e modus ponens)

Empirical claims can be verified by observation

Claims that are not verifiable are meaningless

Question 12

How does Witt.’s and the Vienna circle’s definition of meaning differ?

Answer 12

Wittgenstein I said: meaningful statements express a possible state of affairs. Vienna Circle changes this to: only sentences that are verifiable are meaningful

Question 13

Explain the ‘sense data’ of logical positivists and how it relates to verification

Answer 13

Experiences are gained through sensory perception. Assumption: these experiences are neutral, so that they can serve as a foundation for science. This is called sense data. Verification is the comparison of descriptions of observations (“observation sentences”) with these sense data. Theoretical statements are verified through observation sentence

Question 14

Name 3 problems with this method of verifying theories through sense data

Answer 14

1: It requires a hard separation of theory and observation
2: Induction
3: Unobservable entities

Question 15

Why does this method require separation of theory and observation?

Answer 15

the observation sentences and the theoretical sentences are separated by so-called correspondence rules. Through these correspondence rules, the content of theoretical sentences is reduced to observation.

Question 16

Why does this method requiring separation of theory and observation pose a problem (3)

Answer 16

1: Theoretical terms, such as ‘force’ and ‘mass’ are a serious problem. The meaning of these terms does not seem to be reducible to observations. Especially in psychology many open concepts (e.g. ‘intelligent’, ‘vain’), which cannot be defined exhaustively. Theoretical statements are thus essentially ‘richer’ than observational statement.
2: Theory-ladenness
3: Underdetermination of theories

Question 17

What is meant by theory ladenness?

Answer 17

The logical positivists assume that observations are “neutral”. However, there is a big difference between observing X and observing that X has property Y. The latter type of observation is important but relies on a theory that defines property Y. Moreover, scientific observations are often based on instruments -and their accuracy is itself based on theory

Question 18

Explain undetermination of theories

Answer 18

So how do you determine which theory is correct according to the empiricists?Theories are sometimes equivalent in their empirical consequences. This is called the underdetermination of theories by empirical data. To choose between theories, scientists then use other criteria (e.g. sparsity, elegance). But those criteria are themselves theoretical!

Question 19

How is induction a problem for this theory of verification through sense data?

Answer 19

Induction problem: general statements are not verifiable. Specifically, statements about infinite sets. For example: continua in science. So statements like F=m*a are not verifiable…

Question 20

What element did logical positivists want to neglect from science based on the verification criterion?

Answer 20

The logical positivists want to reduce causal relationships to observations, just like Hume. But you can’t.. So with the verification criterion, causal relationships can’t be part of science

Question 21

Explain the unobservable entities problem of the verification method

Answer 21

In the 20th century, science fills up with unobservable entities. Elementary particles, photons, etc., but also working memory, general intelligence, the LAD, etc. Statements about unobservable entities are neither verifiable nor reducible to observations. In addition, new techniques make some entities observable. But were statements about microbes “meaningless” until the invention of the microscope?

Question 22

What happened when the old Jedi Wittgenstein came back from his chosen life of solitude?

Answer 22

After years in self-chosen isolation Wittgenstein returns to Cambridge. He starts a complete new theory of meaning. Meaning arises in language games. Completely opposing the “received view” of the logical positivists

Question 23

Who claims to have killed logical positivism?

Answer 23

Karl Popper

Question 24

was Karl popper empiricist or rationalist?

Answer 24

Rationalist

Question 25

Similar to how Freud explained everything with sexual repression and aggression, how did Karl Popper’s mentor explain shit? How is this relevent to Popper?

Answer 25

Alfred Adler; Inferiority. Popper presented an example which did not fit into Adler’s model. Model explained this away to show that this example did in fact fit in with his theory. Popper realised this method of proving something as true was a weakness, not a strength. People could see their theory everywhere

Question 26

What other important event inspired Popper?

Answer 26

In the same period Einstein posits the theory of relativity. This theory predicts that light deflects along a planet. The solar eclipse of 1919 enables Arthur Eddington to test the prediction. If the prediction didn’t come true, this would proof Einstein’s theory wrong

Question 27

What did these events lead Popper to conclude? (regarding induction and deduction in theories)

Answer 27

Theories are bold conjectures whose predictions can be tested against observations. Popper: theory-free observation is impossible, but is also not needed. Induction is impossible: you cannot induce theories from observations. But that is ok, because instead we can do deduction: theories can be used to derive predictions about observations!

Thus, theories are not constructed from observations (like the logical positivist claimed). They emerge from the mind, in a creative act. Then predictions are derived from it. These are tested on the basis of observation

Question 28

Explain the steps of this hypothetico-deductive method

Answer 28

Start with theory
Deduce predictions from theory
Test these predictions
If these predictions don’t come true: falsify the theory
If they do come true: corroboration(is not verification!)

Question 29

What two very different stages did Popper have?

Answer 29

context of discovery (there is no logic for theory development); Getting to theory- completely free, no strict methodology to follow

context of justification(strict rules for the logic of testing: modus tollens)

Question 30

Explain how Popper is a rationalist and describe he is different from other rationalists.

Answer 30

Popper’s theories spring from the imagination. This means that part of the content of our theories does not come from observation, but from the ratio. Popper, unlike Plato or Descartes, however, considers the ratio fallible. Thats why his version of rationalism is called critical rationalism and is still very popular in the scientific community.

Question 31

What demarcation criterion did Popper propose for science?

Answer 31

The falsification criterion (when they are in conflict with possible observations )

Question 32

How does a theory become more falsifiable? (2)

Answer 32

More precise and a wider scope of applicability

Question 33

What relationship did Popper claim the falsifiability of a theory had to its informational content

Answer 33

The more falsifiable a theory, the higher its informational content

Question 34

Name three problems falsification faces

Answer 34

• Popper cannot make a clear distinction between better supported and less supported theories
• At best, theories are “not yet refuted”
• Very soon it is noted that hard falsification is difficult

Question 35

What is the Quine-Duhem thesis and how is it relevant to falsification?

Answer 35

If a prediction doesn’t come true, it could be because of the theory. But, it could also be because something else is wrong. Wrong measurements, wrong tests, etc…A theory is never tested in isolation

If a theory cannot be tested in isolation, it will also not be rejected in isolation. Hard falsification is therefore impossible. After all, you never know for sure whether your theory is false or something else is wrong. The Quine-Duhemthesis is a structural problem for Popper. Similar to how induction is a structural problem for the logical positivists

Question 36

What is meant by saying that Poppers theory is normative?

Answer 36

It is a theory concerning what SHOULD be done rather than what has been done

Question 37

What does Thomas Kuhnstudy and claim

Answer 37

History of natural science; we don’t see either of these approaches. We experience progress in an area until reaching a point which cannot be explained within a certain world view (paradigm) and so there is a paradigm shift (e.g from newton to einstein.)

Question 38

What do we call these observations which can cause a paradigm shift?

Answer 38

An anomoly

Question 39

What 4 stages are involved in sciences?

Answer 39

(1) Pre-science
(2) normal science
(3) crisis
(4) revolution
(2) new normal science
…..

Question 40

Does this mean that science then builds gradually according to Kuhn?

Answer 40

No, within a paradigm, the knowledge progresses gradually to one point but during a revolution you move and start building up again from a different reference point to another

Question 41

Associated with Kuhn, what new view emerges?

Answer 41

Relativism; There’s actually no scientific progress. Because terms change meaning in theories, those theories are not even about the same thing. In another paradigm you see another world completely.

Question 42

What does Kuhn mostly base this theory on

Answer 42

Natural sciences; psychology only really has local paradigms (behaviourism etc) and are mostly methodological rather than substantive. By paradigms he means all-encompassing schemes like newtonian mechanics.

Question 43

What claims did feyerabend make and what was this attempted movement called?

Answer 43

Epistemological anarchism; Feyerabend writes the book Against Method. Denies the existence of methodological guidelines ensuring progress in science. It is essential for scientific progress that anything is permitted: “anything goes”. Sudden discoveries can justify something that was already assumed.
Example: tower argument (gallileo, falling straight down)

Question 44

Who did feyerabend study under and who did he study under

Answer 44

Wanted to study under Wittgenstein who then died, studied under Popper

Question 45

What view did Lakatos propose and who did he study under?

Answer 45

Lakatos is a student of Popper who tries to save the rationality of science from both Kuhn’s relativism and Feyerabend’s anarchism. Lakatos combines normative elements of Popper’s philosophy and descriptive elements of Kuhn’s philosophy. Lakatos changes the notion of falsification to a more nuanced version: sophisticated falsificationism.

Lakatos admits that direct falsification will be very rare. Often researchers do not give up their theories that easily. But when they have a new better theory, they’ll switch. There is still a role for falsification as demarcation, but it is not a descriptive principle

Question 46

Explain Lakatos’ research programmes

Answer 46

Different research programmes share a core assumption ( not as wide as paradigms).There are a body of beliefs surrounding the core that can help the theory.

Question 47

What two heuristics are associated with these research programmes?

Answer 47

Negative heuristic- you cannot revise the core assumption

Positive heuristic- some adjustments to protect the hard core are ok.

Question 48

What two types of research programmes does Lakatos distinguish between? What normative component is applicable here?

Answer 48

•Progressive research programmes
–growth
–new techniques
–more facts
•Degenerative research programmes
–shrinkage
–no new techniques
–no increase in facts

Normative component: A rational scientist should stick with a progressive programme but abandon a degenerative programme