[W1] - Readings Flashcards
What argument do some academics make about the applicability of physics’ success for the human/social sciences?
The success of physics over the last 300 years, may be attributable to the application of “the scientific method”. To emulate that success the social sciences should first understand and formulate this method - and then apply it.
This raises two difficult to answer questions:
- What is this
scientific method that is alleged to be the key to the success of physics?
- Is it legitimate to
transfer that method from physics and apply it elsewhere?
Define Facts
Claims about the world that can be directly established by an
unbiased use of the senses (i.e., through observation).
Two schools of thought attempting to formalize a common view of science
[Science is derived from facts]
- Empiricism: Argues that all knowledge should be derived from ideas implanted in the mind by way of sense perception (i.e., observation/facts)
- Positivism: Shares this idea but with a broader, less psychologically oriented view of what facts
amount to.
– Logical Positivists focus on the logical form of relationship between scientific knowledge and the facts.
Key considerations for the claim that science is derived from facts
- What is the nature of facts? How are scientists supposed to access them?
- How are laws and theories derived from these facts?
The definition of facts used by those who consider them the basis of the science
- Facts are achieved via careful, unprejudiced observation through the senses.
- Facts precede and are independent of theory.
- Facts constitute a firm and reliable foundation for scientific knowledge.
Are “facts” observed via the senses interpreted in the same way by a pair of random observers?
Rarely.
Two observers viewing the same thing under
the same circumstances do not necessarily have the same visual experience. This may depend on
a number of factors (e.g. culture, experience, skill).
We can’t
always observe facts (the earth is spinning); they are influenced by the background and expectation
of the observer.
One has to LEARN to be a competent observer
in science.
Before an observer can formulate an observation statement, they must be in possession of an appropriate conceptual framework and knowledge of how to apply it. Clearly, the recording of observable facts requires MORE than just the senses.
What is the relationship between facts and knowledge - given that observation is subjective/fallible?
Facts are knowledge-dependent.
Our search for relevant facts needs to be guided by our current state of knowledge → acquisition
of facts does not have to precede knowledge!
Just like how observation statements are fallible, facts and knowledge are also fallible and subject to correction.
Discuss the medicalization and de-medicalization of homosexuality.
von Krafft-Ebing was a prevalent advocate for the degeneration theory - which stated that sexual practices (like masturbation and homosexuality)
were signs of a progressive psychic decline.
Freud disagreed, and others rejected the degeneration theory.
Regardless, homosexuality was included in the first DSM.
It was removed in 1973 because of protests at an APA convention - highlighting cases of homophobia that had been “justified” by claims that it was a mental
disorder. PLUS - scientific evidence that homosexuality is common and not pathological was brought to light.
Spitzer later argued that homosexuality differed from existing psychiatric disorders - because in many cases it was not accompanied by distress or a general
impairment in social functioning.
Many other psychiatrists then argued that homosexual behavior represents suboptimal functioning. Spitzer countered that if suboptimal states qualified as disorders, then religious fanaticism, racism, and
male chauvinism should be similarly classified.
Discuss the classification and subsequent de-classification of Pluto as a planet.
Pluto was initially categorized as a planet based on inaccurate estimations of its size.
In 2006, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) voted for that to change. There was no definitive argument for keeping it given that its size had been wrongly estimated - and then continuing to exclude Eris.
It was decided that a planet orbits a sun (is not a moon), is massive enough to take a
spherical shape, and is not a member of a larger group of objects sharing the same orbital
location.
Pluto, Eris and Ceres did not meet this definition→ and were put into a new category: dwarf
planets.
The similarities and differences between Pluto and Homosexuality
Similarities:
- Both had a crisis nature and scientists felt pressured to reach
decisions because of public attention.
- Both were ended by proposing a proper definition
and how to apply it.
Differences:
- In Astronomy - A members vote was carried out, and there were relatively few consequences of the
decision as Pluto (and others) would still be studied in the same way.
- In Psychiatry - The decision lay with committees of experts, and there were MANY consequences of the decision.
What did Beauchamp say that mature scientific communities do in the face of inadequate evidence?
Mature communities make
decisions following procedures that are formulated to be fair.
The Role Of Procedure suggests that scientific authority does not lie with individual scientists, but with scientific communities.
The social nature of science (in which people inside and outside of a
research community assess each other’s work) is necessary for the objectivity on which scientific
authority rests! We do not seek to treat scientific authority as a concrete entity - because it is merely an idealized abstraction.
Conflicts between research traditions are a normal part of science. Claims that have survived the competitive process earn scientific authority.
The role of experts in science
To prevent community decisions becoming a popularity contest, they
should be made by a group of informed experts.
Decisions about who qualifies as an expert will always be debatable. In theory, expertise represents a meritocracy (experts are identified with respect to their merit/achievements)
As seen in our examples, problems are inevitable when these key decisions about scientific classifications are subject to externally/socially-enforced timelines.
What complicates classification, regardless of the scientific discipline?
- When the classification relies on abstract constructs that classify a heterogeneous/mixed group as a SINGLE kind.
- The classification will have/has had psychological, social or economic significance.
- The current classification does not satisfactorily account for all the data
— When problems come up, a group of experts needs to be chosen that can make a
thoughtful decision (not with the motive of defending their own beliefs) - as the integrity of this process is essential to continued authority of scientific community!
What similarities are there between the use of Frauengold and current scientific debates?
Frauengold (or women’s gold) was a mix of primarily alcohol and herbs that was recommended to women in 1950s Germany to help them “see the world objectively again”, fit better into society, and not get upset.
In the modern day, we similarly use substances INSTRUMENTALLY, to cope with such problems and achieve certain aims. While Frauengold was not advertised as a treatment
for a mental disorder, it refereed to coping with certain psychosocial conflicts and the mental processes that might arise in them (i.e., anger, impulsivity, despair, or anxiety) – which are in turn associated with disorders being increasingly diagnosed and medicated in the present day.
In the last few decades, the debate on
human enhancement emerged (or reemerged), with most distinguishing strictly between treatment and enhancement. The fuzzy boundary between mental disorders and normalcy has also been recognized, and critiques of medicalizing more and more aspects
of our lives—of excessively diagnosing disorders and prescribing drugs—
are increasingly being voiced.
What can we learn
about ourselves and the society we live in by understanding instrumental
substance use and the aims it is done for?
