Theme 3a Flashcards
unification
underlying causes
reduction
realism
- The belief that the world exists independently of our perceptions, and science helps us understand this objective reality.
- correspondence - truth is what corresponds between our knowledge and the world
idealism
- The belief that reality depends on our perceptions and mental activities, and science is a way of organizing and understanding these experiences.
- coherence, truth is a coherence with the rest of our knowledge
pragmatism
- it focuses on what works best in real-life situations. If an idea or method helps us achieve our goals, then it’s valuable according to pragmatism.
- Knowledge is functional and interactive, coping with the world.
- Truth is success.
6 characteristics of scientific method
- Systematicity:
Scientific theories should apply broadly and be coherent, without ad hoc exceptions.
- Well-defined Methods:
Science uses specific methods to determine what counts as legitimate subjects, facts, and phenomena.
- Reduction:
Science often ignores certain aspects of reality considered accidental.
It reduces complex phenomena to underlying principles (e.g., water, steam, and ice are all the same substance under different conditions).
- Objectivity:
Scientific concepts must be controllable, reliable, and observable by different people.
- Clarity:
Scientific statements should be clear and unambiguous.
- Revisable:
Scientific knowledge is always open to revision and is never considered final.
everyday common sense vs scientific knowledge
Everyday Knowledge:
This is what we know from our daily experiences and common sense.
It includes things we see, feel, and understand without needing special tools or theories.
Scientific Knowledge:
This is what we learn through scientific methods and experiments.
It involves understanding things at a deeper level, often using tools and theories that go beyond everyday experiences.
Manifest Image:
This is the world as we see it with our own eyes and understand it through common sense.
It includes everyday objects and experiences, like seeing a table or feeling emotions.
Scientific Image:
This is the world as described by science, involving particles, forces, and invisible processes.
For example, water is really H2O, and a table is made of molecules, even though we don’t see it that way.
The manifest image (everyday understanding) and the scientific image (scientific understanding) often seem to be in conflict.
Each image claims to provide the true and complete picture of the world.
The text suggests that understanding the world involves both everyday knowledge and scientific knowledge. Instead of seeing them as separate or in conflict, it’s better to see them as parts of a continuum. Scientific methods grow out of everyday practices, and science can be understood better when seen in the context of these practices. The book advocates for a pragmatic view, emphasizing the practical application of science in our daily lives, rather than just focusing on theories.
deduction, deductive arguments
Arguments are sets of statements called premises, which are connected in such a way that they lead to a conclusion.
For example:
Premise 1: Men are bigger than mice.
Premise 2: Mice are bigger than ants.
Conclusion: Men are bigger than ants.
Deductive Arguments:
In deductive arguments, the conclusion is definitively supported by the premises.
If you accept the premises, you must also accept the conclusion to avoid contradiction.
Deductive arguments are sound because the conclusion follows logically from the premises.
Transitive Relations and Formal Structure:
The example given can be formalized using a pattern like:
x is bigger than 𝑦
y is bigger than 𝑧
Therefore, x is bigger than 𝑧
This pattern works for any transitive relation (bigger than, smaller than, older than).
Role of Logicians:
Logicians study the formal structure of arguments, not their content.
They look at what makes arguments valid and how they are similar or different.
Syllogisms and Valid Arguments
Syllogisms:
A syllogism is a type of deductive argument.
Example:
Premise 1: All politicians are liars.
Premise 2: All members of parliament are politicians.
Conclusion: All members of parliament are liars.
This argument is valid in structure, but the truth depends on the truth of the premises.
Conditions for a True Conclusion:
For a deductive conclusion to be true:
The argument must be valid (correct in structure).
The premises must be true.
Summary
Arguments consist of premises leading to a conclusion. Deductive arguments ensure the conclusion follows logically from the premises.
Logicians study the structure of arguments, not the content.
A valid deductive argument requires true premises to have a true conclusion.
The deductive method promises certainty, as seen in Euclid’s geometry and Descartes’ philosophy.
Clark Hull attempted to apply this method to psychology, but it proved impractical because scientific knowledge is always evolving and subject to change.
induction, inductive arguments
Inductive arguments are a type of non-deductive argument.
They make generalizations based on observations.
Example: “I know five psychologists, and they are all arrogant. Therefore, all psychologists are arrogant.”
This conclusion is not guaranteed because it’s based on a small sample.
The more examples you have, the stronger your inductive argument becomes.
If you know 100 or 1,000 psychologists and find them arrogant, your conclusion that all psychologists are arrogant has more support.
Inductive support varies in strength depending on the amount and quality of evidence.
Deductive arguments: The conclusion is certain if the premises are true.
Non-deductive arguments: The conclusion is supported but not guaranteed by the premises.
Inductive reasoning: Generalizes from specific cases; strength depends on evidence.
Statistical arguments: Use probability and percentages to support conclusions.
problems of induction
In inductive arguments, if the premises are true, the conclusion is only probably true, not definitely true. - In deductive arguments, if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
The “problem of induction” is the idea that inductive reasoning cannot be logically justified.
Even though science uses induction to make generalizations and predictions, there’s always a chance those predictions could be wrong. The raven paradox.
abduction
This kind of reasoning is called abduction or inference to the best explanation.
It’s a form of reasoning where an explanatory hypothesis is proposed to account for observed facts.
It follows this pattern: If S (the hypothesis) is true, then R (the observed fact) would occur.
R (the observed fact) is true.
Therefore, it is possible that S (the hypothesis) is true.
Example: If it has rained (S), then the streets are wet (R). The streets are wet (R). Therefore, it may have rained (S).
empiricism, pure observation
theory ladeness
theory
