Unit 6 - What Does Philosophy Have to Say? Flashcards
Describe the conditions a statement must meet in order to be, at least potentially, a scientific statement.
An important characteristic of the scientific statement is that it can be used to generate predictions that are testable, allowing the statement to be supported (not proven) or falsified through experimentation that produces consistent observations that are both replicable and natural (as opposed to supernatural). In other words, a scientific statement should:
(1) provide an explanation or causal mechanism of a naturally occurring phenomenon, and
(2) generate predictions that are testable via observations that are replicable and natural
Logical Positivism
The marriage of empiricism with mathematical logic was completed in Vienna around 1930 by a group of philosophers who had developed a viewpoint called logical positivism. A major tenet of positivism is that only directly observable objects and events should be considered valid scientific subject matter, making it a highly empiricist philosophy. But there is a problem: many things in the sciences are not directly observable
Operationalism
A similar kind of thinking to logical positivism is found in the movement known as operationalism. The key idea here is the “operational definition” of a scientific concept, which is a definition purely in terms of operations resulting in a measurement. For example, instead of defining temperature as the average kinetic energy of molecules, temperature is defined as the reading taken by a thermometer.
Falseficationism
Realism
Relativism
Rationalism
The champion of rationalism was Rene Descartes, who distrusted empirical information as a secure foundation for knowledge because the senses can be fooled. Descartes believed that deductive logic, exemplified by mathematics, was the surest foundation for knowledge. Rationalism, taken to an extreme, proclaims that truth can be apprehended directly by our minds; no empirical input is needed in this view. Few people still accept this extreme view.
Empiricism
The word empirical means founded upon experience and observation. Some might even say that empirical results are the foundation upon which scientific thinking is built. But can science be built on empirical results alone? Although some people might answer yes to this question, such people are in the minority these days. Currently, most people would say that empirical observations and theoretical constructions must mutually reinforce each other in order for science to progress. There is an important problem with basing scientific conclusions solely on empirical facts, namely, the so-called problem of induction. Induction, or inductive logic, basically means that we can conclude that something will always happen because it has always happened before. (“I know the sun will rise tomorrow, because it has risen every day before until now.”) However, any such set of observations must be finite in number and yet the conclusion is meant to be general.
Describe, briefly, the relationship between causality and chance, and that between reduction and emergence.
Explain the statement, “Science is ‘theory-laden.’”
If empirical observations already have a conceptual component inherently built into them, it is circular reasoning to say that our observations have proved our concepts correct. This situation has been noted by philosophers, who use the term “theory-laden” (coined by N. R. Hansen) to describe the interpretive matrix that accompanies seemingly simple facts.
Describe the basic ideas of “normal science” and “revolutionary science,” and explain how these types of science are related in Thomas Kuhn’s theory of how science evolves.
Kuhn’s view is this: Scientific communities operate by sharing a set of assumptions (some tacit and some explicated), techniques, and methodologies, along with a common terminology and worldview. All of this he collectively refers to as a paradigm. Work within a paradigm is called normal science, and consists of filling in details, solving puzzles, and so on. When the number of unsolvable puzzles, loose ends, empirical facts that don’t fit in, and so on becomes intolerable, a scientific revolution occurs; after this, an entirely new paradigm is adopted.
During periods of normal science, determining validity is relatively straightforward because everyone agrees to the same rules and talks the same language. During a scientific revolution, however, when two different paradigms are competing, it becomes extremely difficult to determine validity based on simple empirical comparisons because different scientists might be talking a different language and even seeing a different world. For example, if I live in a world where combustion occurs by the driving off of a substance called phlogiston, and you live in a world where combustion occurs by the combining with a substance called oxygen, how can we compare the results of our experiments to arrive at a common conclusion? Eventually, the new paradigm becomes established. This new paradigm is determined to be better than the old paradigm by a consensus of the scientific community. The process driving the paradigm shift includes a combination of empirical criteria (e.g., there are fewer falsified statements) and nonempirical criteria (e.g., the new paradigm leads to a period of vigorous activity and progress).
State the 4 criteria for selecting among competing theories.
A theory that explains more is better than a theory that explains less. The greatness of Newton’s mechanics is that it explains the orbits of the planets around the sun, the spinning of an ice skater, and the workings of a grandfather clock, all with the same laws of motion. So explanatory power is one of our criteria for what makes a theory good.
Simplicity: a simple and elegant theory, with few assumptions, will be chosen over a cumbersome and ugly theory, even if both explain the observed data equally well.
Fertility: a good theory leads to new ideas, new applications, new connections to existing theories, and new refinements of itself (eventually, to even newer theories).
Finally, a good theory should lead to the prediction of unforeseen results, to something that was not known when the theory was devised.
Discuss both the formal and the social aspects of scientific judgements.
Out of our initial set of empirical observations and experiences, shaped by our unformulated preconceptions, we begin to develop initial scientific concepts. These concepts are used to organize a growing stock of observations, which are combined with various nonempirical criteria (such as simplicity, fertility, and explanatory power) in order to formulate more refined theories. This last step requires the exercise of scientific judgment on the part of individuals and communities. The refined theories lead to a set of predictions, statements, and claims that should have falsifiable consequences. These predictions, statements, and claims are then tested against empirical observation, with scientific judgment again exercised to resolve any ambiguities that present themselves. The collective result of this judgment is a consensus of the scientific community as to whether the theory is valid or not.
Give the truth conditions for both the coherence and correspondence theories of truth, describe how both theories are used in science, and explain why science can never claim to have discovered absolute truth.
There are two main theories of truth: the “coherence theory” and the “correspondence theory.”
In the coherence theory, a statement A is said to be true with respect to a system of statements S if it is implied by S and is consistent with all of the statements of S.
This selection necessarily leads to an important constraint on conceptual knowledge. In developing our concepts, we always leave something out - we choose to carve nature in one way rather than another - so our conceptual knowledge of the world can never lay claim to absolute certainty.
In the case of reason, all “true” statements in a system S are relative to some set of initial assumptions, and to the rules of deductive inference. To see that this is so, suppose that a statement A0 is derived from another statement A1. This does not prove that A0 is true, since deductive logic is, as you will see in Unit 9, strictly formal. All that is known is that if A1 is true, then A0 is true as well. Thus, we must either assume that A1 is true, or deduce it from another statement A2. And by the same reasoning, we must either assume that A2 is true, or deduce it from some A3. To avoid falling into an infinite regression, we must either stop at some point with a statement AN, which is assumed true as an axiom, or close the line of deductions by showing that some statement AN in this sequence is implied by A0. In this latter case, however, the argument becomes circular. If we want to say that the statements involved are true, we must assume that some one of them is true, a priori.
This example can be summarized by saying that what is certain in reason is that valid deduction from consistent initial premises will yield a valid conclusion, but the truth of this conclusion is relative to the truth of the initial assumptions. To investigate the empirical truth of a set of deductively connected statements, we must have some external, non-deductive check on the truth of at least one of these statements. Thus, a set of statements that satisfies the coherence theory of truth, if it is to be applied to a description of the world, must also satisfy the correspondence theory.
Describe the difference between the radical skepticism of the sophist Gorgias and Pyrrhonian skepticism, and explain why the former is useless for science while the latter is essential.
The Sophist Gorgias (483-378 BCE) gave the strongest argument for the claim that no knowledge is certain, writing an essay with arguments in support of the three contentions listed below.
- Nothing exists.
- Even if something did exist, nobody could know it.
- Even if somebody could know about it, they could never communicate their knowledge.
Rather than the dogmatic skepticism of the sophists, however, scientific research requires an attitude based on the skeptical position of the philosopher Pyrrho (c. 365-275 BCE). In Pyrrhonian skepticism, one does not believe or doubt, one “suspends judgement.” The assumption is that with suspension of judgement one attains a mental attitude, the inductive attitude, which is unbiased and most suited to perceiving whatever order may become apparent in experience.
State the three fundamental metaphysical assumptions of science.
- Nature is ordered.
- This order is comprehensible to human reason.
- Our understanding of this order can be communicated without subjective bias.
A scientific statement posits a logically consistent explanation for naturally occurring phenomenon. An important characteristic of the scientific statement is that it can be used to generate predictions that are testable, allowing the statement to be supported (not proven) or falsified through experimentation that produces consistent observations that are both replicable and natural (as opposed to supernatural). In other words, a scientific statement should
(1) provide an explanation or causal mechanism of a naturally occurring phenomenon, and
(2) generate predictions that are testable via observations that are replicable and natural.
Consider the following statements and discuss whether each fulfills the criteria for a scientific statement.
a. The universe and everything in it came into existence at 3 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time, on June 1, 2000.
b. Water is composed of hydrogen and chlorine.
c. The moon is made of green cheese.
d. The speed of light in a vacuum is about 300,000 kilometres per second.
e. Our personalities are influenced by the position of the planets at the time we were born.
Reductionism
To illustrate what reductionism means, let’s consider an example. Kepler’s laws tell us descriptively how the planets move around the sun. Newtonian dynamics tells us, in theory, how any object should move. In our example, there are two levels of reduction; first, Kepler reduced reams of observational data to a small number of empirical rules, and then Newton reduced these empirical rules to a special case of a general theory. “The idea that higher-level scientific theories can be reduced to more fundamental ones.”
Emergence
Another argument against extreme reductionism has been advanced by the philosophical movement known as holism. The basic idea here is that a whole may be more than the sum of its parts. A complex system may exhibit emergent properties that can’t be predicted by analysis of the component parts of the system.
Define the three types of knowledge labeled by the Greek terms epistemé, tekhné and gnosis.
Pistemé means knowledge in the sense of understanding; that is, fitting within a conceptual framework. It was derived from the word epistanai, which meant “to stand upon.” In other words, it referred to knowledge that stood upon or was supported by a secure and rational conceptual foundation. It could be supported by rational argument; one could take a stand on it.
Tekhné refers to skill, or know-how; that is, to practical knowledge as found in arts and crafts. The roots of this word trace back to a complex of ideas that include weaving, fabrication and construction. In modern terms, it can be thought of as craft knowledge, as well as technical and engineering knowledge. Claims to possess technical knowledge are stated in terms of a capacity to do something. Thus, the validation of the claim is found in the actual performance.
Gnosis meant, and still means, the intuitive apprehension of truth, or knowledge gained through direct insight into reality. In modern usage, it is generally taken to refer to spiritual truths, and so is often considered irrelevant from the viewpoint of scientific consideration. This is a mistake. If science ignores the idea of intuition as a source of valid knowledge, then it has no direct way of understanding human creativity, which is the real source of both science and culture.
Write a short essay (300-500 words) discussing how suspension of judgement fits the inductive attitude as defined by Pólya (see Discussion 1.1).
Write a short essay (300-500 words) structured as a dialogue between a rationalist and an empiricist on the topic of the proper way to do science.
