Unit 4 - What is Understanding? Flashcards
Recap the main points of units 1 through 3.
In Unit 1, we considered the importance of understanding science and its relation to the rest of society, and noted that the inductive attitude is a major aspect of science. In Unit 2, we discussed science as an activity that seeks to understand the world, and pointed out that the methods used in this search have evolved in human cultures over time. Unit 3 introduced the method of directed questions and answers, and briefly described the modern version of this method as it is used in science, including some of the criteria to be satisfied by acceptable answers. Thus, as we begin Unit 4, we have the idea that science seeks understanding of the world through a process of interrogation, carried out from a particular point of view, in which criteria for formulating questions and for accepting provisional answers have evolved over the course of human history.
Define “systems” in a scientific context.
Systems are complex units made up of diverse parts that exchange something—molecules, energy, information—and that are more or less segregated from their surroundings.
Describe the “bottom-up” approach to science.
In the bottom-up approach, we begin with the most basic components of the system, and the way in which these elementary components interact and fit together to make up the system. The idea is that it may be possible to understand properties of the whole system by knowing how these properties are determined by the interactions of its elementary components. This approach has been useful in chemistry, for instance, where the properties of chemical compounds are explained in terms of their molecular and atomic composition. It has also proved useful in elementary particle physics, and in medicine, where many diseases are understood and treated in terms of the malfunction of a particular organ, group of cells or gene.
Describe the “top-down” approach to science.
In the top-down approach, it is assumed that a system must satisfy certain constraints, either on the basis of general laws of nature, or in order to maintain its integrity as a system. We then ask what conditions these constraints impose on the system’s components and their interactions. This approach often shows up, for example, in applications of the various symmetry, optimality and conservation principles that are used in science. Human physiology, for example, contains many feedback mechanisms to insure that things such as body temperature, heart rate, blood sugar and blood pressure remain within acceptable ranges. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the conditions arising from the necessity of organismic survival also impose certain anatomical and physiological conditions on the human body.
Write a short essay (300-500 words) describing the use of top-down and bottom-up approaches in the development of the periodic table of the elements, as described in Chapter 2 of What Science Is.
What difficulties can arise in the top-down and bottom-up approaches to science?
A difficulty with the bottom-up approach is that it is often unclear how overall systemic properties emerge from the interaction of system components. There is nothing obvious in the atomic nature of hydrogen and oxygen, for example, telling us that we can expect to experience water as being wet.
In the top-down approach, on the other hand, it is often unclear what general principle, or set of principles is appropriate to characterize a given system. A lack of clarity can lead to the imposition of inappropriate conditions and requirements. In medicine, for example, it is easy to say that the overall principle is health. But then it is necessary to define health. Is it a lack of pain? Then we might focus attention on painkillers. Is it a healthy appearance? Then we might focus on cosmetic surgery.
The “predictivist thesis” in philosophy of science is that the goal of science is to make successful predictions. Do you agree with this? If not, why not? What is the role of predictions in science?
I do not agree with the predictivist thesis because it is truncated / self-limiting. Predicting the behavior of a system does not mean that there is any real understanding of the system, and doesn’t allow for interaction / change. The goal of predictions should be to test hypotheses in order to further our understanding. The predictivist thesis confuses a method with a purpose, or the path with the destination, or the means with end.
State the difference between “formal purpose” and “functional purpose,” and identify at least three different functional purposes of science.
Some of the functional purposes of science, according to the context of our viewpoint, are
- to free people from fear
- to free people from drudgery and repetitive labour
- to provide leisure and vehicles for personal self-expression
- to provide a vehicle of personal development
- to attain understaind of ourselves and the world
- to improve human health and security
- to provide a basis for standards of moral and ethical conduct and social regulation
- to foster social cohesion and interaction through a basis of commonly accepted knowledge
- to provide means of defining and attaining ideals
For science itself, however, it would seem that the best statement of formal purpose that can be given is simply “to understand the world rationally.”
Write a short essay (300-500 words) discussing the way in which the formal purpose of science relates to and supports one (or more) of its functional purposes.
State the difference between “prediction” and “explanation,” or “forecasting” and “understanding.”
Knowing that something is going to happens vs knowing why it is happening, or what meaning it has.
Define understanding in science in terms of conceptual frameworks.
“For our purposes, then, to understand something means to be able to interpret it within a conceptual framework, and to experience intuitively the validity of the interpretation, to see that it is a good fit. Without a conceptual framework to give meaning to observations and theories, we do not even know what questions need to be asked. Thus, to explain something is to show how it fits within a conceptual framework, how it may be understood. Explanation, as well as understanding, is always relative to a particular conceptual framework.”
“In Discussion 4.2, we defined “understanding” of a thing or idea in terms of being able to fit it into a conceptual framework.”
Describe the role of conceptual frameworks in science.
“A conceptual framework provides the context within which meaning arises. When facing the complexity of the world, the number of questions we can ask is unlimited. Without some means of sorting out what is really important, we can make no real progress. In the question-and-answer process of science, conceptual frameworks—what Thomas Kuhn calls paradigms—provide the context that determines which questions are important, and what sorts of answers are significant.”
“In science, a conceptual framework includes assumptions about how to reason and interpret evidence, as well as certain assumptions about what is natural—the “ideals of natural order.”’
“Thus, in saying that the general purpose of science is to understand the world rationally, we are saying that science aims at the development of conceptual frameworks within which observed aspects of the world can be rationalized. This formulation implies that the conceptual frameworks used must be internally consistent, must allow experimental testing, and must give conclusions that can be shown to correspond to the world.”
Write a short essay (300-500 words) on the importance of intuitive insight for understanding. Why is being able to provide a verbal or written explanation not sufficient?
“Not only must we be able to offer an interpretation within a conceptual framework, we must also have an intuitive grasp of the coherence of our interpretation with that framework. Without this intuitive aspect, we are only playing with words, and our understanding will be superficial at best.”
“Verification alone does not give us a clue as to the role of a statement within the theory; it does not explain the relevance of the statement. In short, the logical truth of a statement does not enlighten us as to the sense of the statement.”
What different ideals of natural order are found in the stages of the development of the theory of planetary motion, as described in Chapter 5 of What Science Is? Note how the ideals become more abstract, more idealized, as the theory develops.
Describe the Aristotelian ideals of natural order in dynamics, planetary motion and the theory of matter, and contrast them to the ideals of natural order introduced by Galileo (in dynamics), Newton (in dynamics and planetary motion), and 18th century chemists (in the theory of matter).
“Ideals of natural order” refers to the belief that the universe follows an inherent, structured, and often morally or logically determined pattern.
Aristotle – perfect circles, the unchanging celestial spheres
Galileo –
Newton – the states of rest and uniform straight-line motion,
18th century chemists –
Describe the distinction between “physiology” and “pathology” in terms of ideals of natural order.
The alchemists believed that all of nature was in a process of development, striving toward a state of perfection. The process involved definite stages. A butterfly, for example, begins as an egg, becomes a caterpillar, enters a cocoon, and eventually emerges, as a butterfly that lays eggs. It was believed that this process could be speeded up by an appropriate application of heat under the appropriate conditions. So, for example, beginning with lead one might produce tin, copper, silver, and eventually, gold.
a. What is the ideal of natural order behind this theory?
b. What are some possible means of explaining deviations from this order?
c. What is the basic pattern of explanation that is used?
d. Is there any field today, scientific or otherwise, where this form of theory might apply? If so, what would be the analogue of heat? Of the closed vessel (or “womb”) in which the transformations are to take place?
A. That a perfect state is possible, and that nature strives toward this perfect state.
B. Improper conditions, improper or insufficient application of heat.
C.
D.
