Quiz 2, The Method of Science and Karl Popper's Conjectures and Refutations Flashcards
What is the focus of the method of science? How is it applied?
The focus is on the application towards reality. Nobody can deny reality. Therefore, I believe this because it is close to reality [what might be called the truth].
What are the fundamental hypothesis of the method of Science
There are real things [whose characteristics are independent of how we might feel about them]. - real things are real and unchangable
There is one right answer
How would you describe the stability of the method? Why?
This method is inherently stable because there is no doubt built into its practice.
Investigation cannot prove Real things, but it cannot point to a contrary either
For tenacity, you become vulnerable once you meet and speak to someone with a different belief
What causes doubt within the methof of science? What concession is made when using the method of science to fix a belief?
Disatisfaction between two repugnant propositions causes doubt.
The concession made using this method is that one thing that a proposition represents is Real because if there was nothing Real between two propositions, we would not be close to reality, and therefore not using the method of science
Why is the method of science able to distinguish between right and wrong ways of fixing belief
Because all the other methods rely on either what the individual or the state thinks. Since it’s based in logic, the method of science makes good and bad reasoning possible because here comes a right and wrong way to reason something.
Popper
What is the demarcation problem?
What makes a theory scientific or non-scientific?
Popper
What does an empirical inductive method look like? Is there anything wrong with it? Why?
empirical inductive science sees that observation is taken as evidence
the issue with this is that non-scientific things, like astrology, are also observation based, and calling a theory found through this method scientific would be a disservice to science
Popper
How were people like Freud and Marx’s ideas ‘padded’
ad hoc auxilary assumptions, which make it so that anything detracting from an argument they made could in turn be disproved
i.e. all humans are selfish. even if I do something out of kindness, I must have some ulterior motive
Popper
Why did Popper not like Freud and Marx’s evidence
He found that with both of them, their inherent strength explanatory power, their theories would always be confirmed
He did not think that this was right
Popper
Why did Popper enjoy Einstein and Eddington’s experiment? What did it make him think about?
He thought that the risk involved, and the general theme of falsifying Newton had merit to it.
He thought that good theories then were inherently fragile and open to falsifiability
Popper
And what did Popper think about confirmations? What made them valid?
Confirmations come easy, and it is only confirmations that come from risky predictions that have merit
Popper
What does a good theory do? What is a genuine test of a good theory?
A good theory prohibits certain things from happening, the more the better
A genuine test is an attempt to falsify a theory
Popper
When is a theory unscientific?
When it is unfalsibiable/irrefutable
ad hoc auxillary assumptions within a theoy immedietly demote it
Popper
Why are Marxism and Freudian theory non-scientific?
Marx; because although earlier followers left room to be falsified, their later followers ‘rescued’ the ideology by making it irrefutable and thus non-scientific
Freud; his ideas are mostly just suggestions about why people act the way they do, can’t really be falsified
Popper
When do mythos and metaphysics gain merit scientifically?
When they act as origin points, or are formed into falsifiable theories
Popper
What are Hume’s two things about knowledge
Impressions; experiences, split second encounters
Ideas; the recollection of impressions
Without impression, there is no idea
Everything in the mind is simply cut and paste from ideas
Popper
What is empirical knowledge according to Hume?
mind must meet matter, you have to experience something to truly know it
Popper
What is the problem of induction? What does it have to do with the past and future?
The problem of induction is how do we base universal truths on particular instances, what is the justification for that? This has to do with the past and future because we assume that future events will be similar to past events
Popper
Give me an example of the induction problem using stones falling
The problem of generalization with regards to stones falling would be that because we never experiecne the necessity or universality of all falling stones, we cannot relate the experience of all stones to one stone
Popper
What do we really mean when we talk about laws of nature if induction is not correct
Laws of nature are more like habits, things that are reasonable or rationally defensible
Popper
Because we cannot experience every natural occurance of something, what are we subjected to?
being led astray easily, i.e. the parable of the chicken where it gets fed everytime a woman comes out into the yard (a habit), until it is killed for meat
Popper
What did Popper and Hume decide eventually about induction?
That it cannot be rationally justified, and in the end it is a habit, an act of faith
Popper
Regarding induction, what three things was Hume wrong about according to Popper?
- the typical result of repetition – ideas are not the result of repeated outcome
- the genesis (beginning) of habits – There must always be a point of view of repetitions, expectation (even just after a single observation), anticipation, and assumption
- the charcater of believing in law – we use trial and error and force our human perceptions of reality onto the natural world
Popper
With regard to the factors Popper thought Hume was wrong about with repetition, what are the only courses left to obtain knowledge by?
- non-inductive procedure (rationalism)
- apparent knowledge is just belief
Popper
Why is the notion that science can start with pure observation absurd? Why is simply telling someone to observe absurd?
To answer both, you cannot observe without a frame of reference. Observation presupposes a frame of reference
We are born with expectations
Popper
What correspons closely to Kant’s law of causality? What is it a part of?
A regularity, our mental outfit and a priori validity
Popper
What kind of observers are we? What do we seek when we observe?
Passive Observers who impose order on nature i.e. time/space
We seek to observe regularity
Popper
Describe dogmatic thinking, what does it originate from
Dogmatic thinking is similar to tenacity, where you stick wholeheartedly to your expectations – to an extent, it is necessary
Stems from simplification
Popper
Describe the critical attitude
the critical attitude is a quick adoption of a schema of expectation, but with an attitude more open (in comparison to dogmatic thinking) to modifications or corrections
Popper
What is the distinction between dogmatic and critical attitudes
takes us back to the central problem of demarcation, where dogmatic seeks to verify law to the point of neglecting refutations
Popper
Describe the scientific attitude
the rediness to test, revise, or reject theory
Popper
What role does the critical approach play when making arguments
The critical approach helps to discover what theories imply and look at them deeper, resulting in an ability to criticize
Popper
What is the most rational procedure, what method takes this title
trial and error, conjecture and refutation
Popper
What was Hume wrong about regarding belief
he was wrong in saying that belief - in terms of critical acceptance of scientific theories - is irrational
Popper
What are the three ingredients in the problem of logical induction?
- it is impossible to justify a universal law from observation/experimentation
- science presupposes law and uses them all the time
- the principle of empiricism where only observation/experimentation determine the acceptance or rejection of a scientific statement
