Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

FP 2 > W2: Philosophy of Science > Flashcards

W2: Philosophy of Science Flashcards

L9, L10, Ch. 9, PA 5 and tutorial, Kuhn article

1
Q

Who is Wittgenstein?

A

Philosopher that wrote 2 revolutionary contradictory books in the 20th century
both about philosophy of language (what is meaning?)
started in maths -> logic -> philosophy (which Russel was working on, who becomes his mentor) specifically, he was working on developing logic aka a formal language in a way that everything can be founded on this (including maths)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Define demarcation

A

setting and marking theboundaries of a concept; used, for instance, in the philosophy of science to denote attempts to define the specificity of science

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Define philosophy of science

A

branch of philosophy that studies the foundations of science and its position in the world

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What was Russel’s paradox and how did he find it?

A

type of logic being used at the time: set theory: a set of math things that meet a certain definition (ex: prime numbers)
Found a paradox in set theory: you could create a set according to the rules of set theory, that would result in a paradox, like “make a set of all sets that do not contain themselves, aka a set of all things that are not a member of themselves.” does this set contain itself?
if it contains itself than it shouldnt be part of it, if it isnt part of it than that means it doesnt contain itself which means it should be part of it
hairdresser example: “ i will shave everyones head who doesnt shave their own head, and only those people” should the hairdresser shave their own head?
-> BIG PROBLEM FOR LOGIC

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What does Wittgenstein do about russels paradox?

A

concludes that paradox stems from clarity in what it is that makes something “meaningful”
so thinks we should be very strict about what is meaningful and what isnt
main question: WHAT IS A MEANINGFUL SENTENCE? -> The Tractatus book

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What are the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus 7 main points?

A
  • The world is the totality of facts.
  • Fact is an existing state of affairs
  • Elementary facts are indivisible and independent of each other (logical atomism)
  • Complex facts are a combination of elementary facts (constituents)
  • A thought or proposition expresses a possible state of affairs in this world
  • The state of affairs is the meaning of the thought
    If the state of affairs proposed by the thought/proposition does occur, then the statement is true
    If the state of affairs does not occur, then the proposition is not true (but it is meaningful)
  • The general form of a truth-function (aka propositon) is [p, A, N(t)].
  • Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What is logical atomism according to the Tractatus Logico book?

A

elementary facts are indivisible and independent of each other

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

When is a proposition meaningful but false?

A

when a state of affairs is proposed, but that state of affairs is not part of the world, it doesnt actually happen (like saying Bia is taller than Roos)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

When is a proposition not meaningful?

A

Statements that dont depict a possible state of affairs
when it is a subjective statement (Sarah is beautiful), as a result language cannot express anything “higher” like ethics or aesthetics
-> only what is true is sayable (not what is good, beautiful…etc.)
-> VERY INFLUENTIAL THOUGHT IN 20TH CENTURY

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What is the limit of the sayable?

A
  • all possible scientific questions have been answered, but the problems of life remain completely untouched
  • however these things can still be shown, but we dont know how to talk meaningfully about things like beauty and ethics
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

How did the Logical Positivists start?

A
  • in 1920s in Vienna: discussion group set up to base philosophy on science & logic (includes scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers)
  • influenced by Wittgensteins tractatus
  • also analytic philosophy
  • attack traditional “vague” continental philosophy
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What is logical positivists weapon to attack vague philosophy?

A

Meaning
they ask philosopher with vague statements, “what do you mean by that?” to prove that their statements arent meaningful (that they do not talk about a possible state of affairs)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What is the linguistic turn?

A

Since mind was drawn into domain of natural science and psych (brain), the domain of philosophy changed:
focus became the clarification of language, and the assessment of which sentences are meaningful
- that which remains after the language has been clarified and stripped of meaningless claims, becomes the subject of natural science

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What was the manifesto of Logical Positivism?

A
  • starts philosophy of science as a separate philosophical discipline
  • deeply marks thinking about science & psych
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What were the starting points of the Logical Positivism manifesto?

A
  1. Meaningful claims are either empirical (studied by natural science) or logical (studied by philosophy) in nature
  2. Logical claims represent the world and are verifiable by looking at their form (e.g. using logic and maths)
  3. Empirical claims are about the world and can be verified by observation
  4. Claims that are not verifiable are meaningless
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

How did logical positivists think that science went?

A

observation -> through induction, observations made into general pinciples-> verification of the principles using objective observation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What is the demaraction criterion of verifiability?

A

only sentences that are verifiable by observation are meaningful (Positivists’ update on Wittgensteins statement: meaningful statements express a possible state of affairs)
ex meaningless: donald has an oedipus complex.
ex meaningful: the scale indicates 34kg

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What other fields relate to the logical positivists?

A

Empiricists like Hume including his rejection of the notion of causality
both empiricist & logical positivist were on “a crusade” against nonsense

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What did Wittgenstein think about the verifiability demaraction criterion?

A

wasnt as into scientific and maths proof of everything, not as into verifiability

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

How do logical positivists think we can verify things?

A

through sense data (factual desceriptions of perception)
assumption= these experiences are neutral, so that they can serve as a foundation for science
verification is the comparison of descriptions of observations (“observation sentences”) with these sense data (ex: if i say “there is a chair in this room” then i should go verify it by looking for the sense data aka seeing the chair in the room)
-> theories rest on neutral observations (empiricism)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

What are the problems with the verifiability criterion by logical positivists?

A
  1. Separation of theory and observation:
    a. reducing theory to observations isnt right because theoretical concepts are richer than summaries of observations
    b. Theory ladenness: logical positivists assume that observations are “neutral”. but observations arent neutral, they are influenced by the theoretical framework held by the observer & instruments
  2. Underdetermination of theory by data (its unclear what specific theory should be believed in based on data): data could give many possible explanations so to choose between theories scientists then use other criteria (ex: elegance, uniqueness…) but those criteria are themselves theoretical
  3. Induction problem: general statements are not verifiable. we cannot predict future events based on past data so there is no logical guarantee that observed patterns will persist (Hume!). so with verifiction criterion, causality cant be a part of science since logical positivists want to reduce causal relationships to observations
  4. Unobservable entities: elementary particles, atoms, photons etc. So statements about these entities are not verifiable & new techniques make some entities observable (but statements about microbes were considered “meaningless” until the microscope came around!)
    + Wittgenstein returns to academics & publishes a new contradictory book that undermines the logical positivists base
    + Popper’s contributions
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

How did Popper come with the idea of his falsification criterion?

A

saw theories of Adler, Freud…Etc. and realized that they can explain EVERYTHING
-> saw this as a weakness
vs einsteins relativity theory could be proven wrong (it excludes certain events) which gave him the idea for the criterion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

What were Popper’s ideas on how science should be conducted?

A
  • Theories are bold conjectures, aka just you come up with something random, whose predictions can be tested against observations (instead of finding theories from observations)
  • Theory-free observation is impossible and unnecessary
  • Induction is imposible (cannot induce theories from observations)
  • But deduction is possible: theories can be used to derive predictions about observations
    so for him we make up a theory first, from this we make predictions and then use observations to possibly falsify it
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

How did Popper think that science differed from non-science?

A
  1. the theories can be falsified
  2. there is a willingness to do so
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

What was the ad hoc modification problem?

A

modifications to a theory that according to Popper
make the theory less falsifiable; decrease the scientific value of the theory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Why is falsification a better demarcation criterion than verification?

A

It is not possible to use observation to prove a theory, but it is possible to use observation to falsify one.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

why is falsification counterintuitive?

A

because people have a bias towards trying to confirm
their opinions rather than trying to reject them.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

What are the 2 methods scientists usually used while applying falsification?

A
  1. examining whether the data contradicting the theory is sound
  2. examining if the theory can be modified to incorporate the new results and become sound
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

What is Popper’s hypothetico-deductive model?

A
  • Start w theory
  • Deduce predictions from theory
  • Test these predictions
  • if these predictions don’t come true: falsify the theory
  • if they do come true: corroboration (is not verification!)
  • a corroborated theory is one that is strong because it survived risky tests (but it is not accepted!)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

What are the 5 steps of the empirical cycle?

A

observation -> theory construction -> prediction -> test -> evaluate -> observation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

What did Popper mean when he said that there is a strict separation between context of discovery and context of justification?

A

Context of discovery: there is no logic for theory development, its a free creative phase
Context of justification: strict rules for the logic of testing: modus tollens
These 2 are separate!

32
Q

Is falsificationism closer to empiricism or rationalism?

A

Rationalism!
Logical positivists were with empiricists but Popper’s falsificationism goes w rationalism
- Popper’s theories spring from the imagination
-> so part of the content of our theories does not come from observation, but from our reasoning!
but compared to plato & descartes, popper considers the ratio fallible, so his version of rationalism is called Critical Rationalism

33
Q

What is a demarcation criterion?

A
  • distinguishes science from pseudoscience
  • popper proposes falsification criterion as a demarcation criterion
34
Q

What is the falsification criterion?

A

statements or theories are scientific when they are in conflict with possible observations
aka a theory is scientific only if the theory is falsifiable
so no more logical positivist issues

35
Q

How does Popper differentiate degrees of falsifiability?

A

a theory that is
- more precise on what it predicts (how precise is the hypothesis in what it predicts? the more precise the prediciton the more falsifiabe)
- more general on what it pertains to
exclude more = more falsifiable = greater “informative content” (general vs conditional, what or who does the hypothesis pertain to? the more ppl it pertains to the more falsifiable)

36
Q

What are the problems with falsification?

A
  • cannot make a distinction between better supported and less supported theories (at best, theories are “not yet refuted”)
  • hard falsification, seeing something that really rejects the theory, is difficult (Duhem-Quine thesis)
37
Q

What does the Duhem-Quine thesis say?

A

argument against hard falsification
- a theory cannot be tested in isolation so it also cannot be rejected in isolation
- cus a theory is always tested together with additional background assumptions (ie about the measurement instrument) -> so any of these other factors could have led to a prediciton not coming true/falsification
BIG PROBLEM FOR POPPER

38
Q

Does Popper’s falsifiction norm really work?

A

Not really, its unrealistic to ask psychologists to try to refute their own theories

39
Q

What is a paradigm?

A

a framework or model in which a set of ideas are accepted. In it is a general theory, rules, patterns, ways to research a problem…etc. that fit the model.

40
Q

What did Kuhn claim?

A

that science is not as the logical positivists or popper claim
against positivism: theories often break with their predecessor!
= big paradigm shifts instead of gradual accumulating scientific progress

41
Q

Is progress possible in Kuhns view?

A

he was unclear about his specific pov
but it seems unlikely since paradigm shifts completely change the view on the world and “replace” the old view, instead of building on it

42
Q

What is relativism?

A

Scientific progress is not a thing
cus if the meaning of terms change, in theories, those theories are not even about the same thing, so progress is relative
in another paradigm, you see another world
- relativisits use kuhns view to corroborate their view

43
Q

Name and describe Kuhn’s stages of science

A
  1. Pre-science: Research disciplines start with unorganized facts, models, and observations attempting to explain phenomena. There is no agreement on methods.
  2. Normal science I: all theories, assumptions, and other things that make up the paradigm are kept constant. scientistis focus on solving puzzles using the constant established paradigm
  3. Anomalies accumulate resulting in crisis & Revolution: paradigm shift, something big happens that allows for a new, better fitting, paradigm (like einsteins relativity theory) (progressive or degenerative research paradigm)
  4. Normal Science II
44
Q

In kuhns framework, do paradigms get replaced by better ones?

A

no! they just get replaced by another one. so all scientific knowledge is relative and time-dependent because its based on a paradigm that is bound to be replaced in the future

45
Q

Which old controversy is stirred up by Kuhn?

A

The controversy that postmodernist philosophers think science is not superior to other fields or types of knowledge, since it is also just social constructions made up by scientists. It made people question the status of science in general.

46
Q

Which 2 aspects of Kuhn’s theory are complicated?

A
  1. The cycle is endless, aka paradigms are ever changing. would mean that we can never really see our current knowledge as “the truth” since it will inevitably move on to the next stage
  2. Means that sciences position as the driving motor for progress & knowledge is questioned, since it seems that scientists are constantsly changing paradigms but not sure if theyre really progressing
47
Q

What scientific stage is psychology in?

A
  • psych only has “local” paradigms, we dont have anything all encompassing
  • psych paradigms are also mostly methodological not substantive
  • so we have some paradigms like behaviourism but stages overlap more
48
Q

What is epistemological anarchism?

A
  • denies existence of methodological guidelines ensuring progress in science
  • think that it is essential for scientific progress that anything is permitted “anything goes”
  • there are no rules!
49
Q

What is Lakatos’ Sophisticated falsificationism?

A
  • tries to save rational science from kuhns relativism & anarchism
  • combines popper & kuns = sophisticated falsificationism
  • admits that full direct falsifiction is rare, but that theories will change over time but not as radically as once thought
    positive heuristic= some adjusments to protect the hard core of the theory are okay
    negative heuristic= you cannot revise the core completetely
50
Q

What are progressive vs degenerative research programmes?

A

progressive: allows for growth, new techniques, and more facts
degeneratvie: shrinkage, no new techniques, no increase in facts
normative componenet: a rational scientist should stick with a progressive programme but abandon a degenerative programme

51
Q

Why did scientistis claim having a superior position to the humanities?

A
  1. Realism: assumption of a physical world w objects that can be studied
  2. Objectivity: no dependence on the observer, humans can universally agree on objective principles
  3. Truth: if scientific statements correspond to the real state of the world they
  4. Rationality: scientific statements are based on sound methods so their truth should be guaranteed
52
Q

What did Plato think about information acquisition?

A

RATIONALISM
human perception is fallible, therefore we should rely on innate knowledge of the soul and use reasoning to get to it

53
Q

What did Aristotle think about information acquisition?

A
  • made distinction between deductive vs inductive reasoning
  • theoretical knowledge starts w axioms but perception is necessary as a source of information
  • correspondence theory of truth
54
Q

What did Aristotle’s correspondence theory of truth talk about?

A

a statement is true when it corresponds with reality. Assumes that there is a physical reality which has priority and which the human mind tries to understand.

55
Q

What did Pyrrho’s skepticism say about information acquisition?

A

doesnt deny existence of a physical reality, but denies that
humans can have reliable knowledge of it

56
Q

What did Augustine & Catholic Church think about information acquisition?

A
  • similar to Aristotle
  • but true knowledge stems from god’s revelations through the bible
57
Q

What did Galilei say about information acquisition?

A
  • showed importance of experimentation & observation for information aqcquisition
  • demonstrations are true knowledge
58
Q

What did Bacon say about information acquisition?

A

New scientific method: systematic observation & inductive reasoning are necessary parts of obtaining knowledge, research should begin with collecting facts, ordering them into tables and then carefully seeing what can be induced from them

59
Q

What are Bacon’s 3 tables?

A
  1. table of essence & presence: all instances where a phenomenon is presence
  2. table of deviation or absence of proximity: phenomenon is absent despite similar circumstances
  3. table of degrees or comparison: compiling instances where the phenomenon is present in degrees
    -> overall goal is comparing and finding out where the differences lie and where stable observations always occur
    -> one should find instances where a hypothesis does not hold and accumulate these as evidence for a different one
60
Q

Why did Von Liebzig criticize Bacon’s methodology?

A

cus it did not include a research question or specific goal, rather it was like a blind data collection

61
Q

What were Newton’s ideas on information acquisition?

A

main method: inductive reasoning to establish basic principles from which, through deductive reasoning, more knowledge could be gained.

62
Q

How did thoughts about information acquisition change throughout the scientific revolution?

A

before: deductive reasoning was the only accepted form of getting the truth
after: more focus on inductive reasoning as a way of getting truth, especially when facts were collected in large numbers and without prejudice, when effects could be replicated, and when theories led to new verifiable predicitions . doubts concerning the method were swept under the carpet towards end of 19th century

63
Q

What was Locke’s contribution to the information acquisition discussion?

A

distinguished between scientific knowledge requiring absolute certainty, and judgement which are probable opinions.

64
Q

How did Huygens defend inductive reasoning?

A
  • principles can be verified if their effects are observed to a degree of probability, if a lot of phenomena in line w the principles are collected then the prob comes close to complete proof
  • truth is even more guaranteed if the principles allowed researchers to make new predictions and verify them
65
Q

What are the 2 proposed definitions of probability?

A

useful because induction was seen as probable truth
1. Mathematical probability: a game with several outcomes has easily calculable probabilities when considering it for each outcome
2. The probability of a theory is determined by the degree of belief the researcher has in it

66
Q

How did people start appreciating hypotheses more?

A

Herschel (19th century):
competing hypotheses derived from general laws (obtained through induction) can be tesetd and a decision between them made, allowing for more universal generalizations

67
Q

What did Whewell and Comte point out?

A

there is no clear distinction between deductive (fact) and inductive (theory), they are closely interconnected and influence by the other

68
Q

Why was the scientific method reexamined in the 20th century?

A
  1. The scientific method proved very successful at producing inventions
  2. Alternatives to Euclidean geometry exist, thus deduction is not as divine as it seems
  3. Advances in logical reasoning
    ⇒ attempts at the demarcation, the definition of the boundaries of science, ensued and became known as the philosophy of science, which examines the position of scientific knowledge in relation to other knowledge types
69
Q

Define pragmatism

A

view that knowledge is dervied from successfully coping with the world, practical knowledge; ideas that work are retained, ideas that do not make a practical difference get lost

70
Q

Why was pragmatism ignored till recently?

A

cus it does not give a special status to scientific knowledge

71
Q

What were Peirce’s pragmatic methods for gathering knowledge?

A
  1. method of tenacity: knowledge held because they have been present for a long time
  2. Method of authority: knowledge obtained from experts
  3. A priori method: a person’s own reason and logic is used to reach conclusions, includes intuition
  4. Scientific method
72
Q

What is the idealism vs realism debate in philosophy of science?

A

the extent to which human perception and understanding correspond to a physical reality (idealism: against)

73
Q

How do the beliefs and conceptions of scientists change as the result of a paradigm shift?

A

They see new and different things when looking with familiar instruments in places they have looked before :
a. Familiar objects are seen in a different light and joined by unfamiliar ones as well.
b. Scientists see the world of their research-engagement differently.
c. Scientists see new things when looking at old objects.
d. In a sense, after a revolution, scientists are responding to a different world.

74
Q

How do paradigm shifts resemble gestalt swtiches?

A

Kuhn draws an analogy with gestalt switches, which are abrupt changes in perception. Similarly, scientists may experience a shift in how they perceive and interpret the phenomena they study.
- change in theoretical outlook
- change in how scientists observe and interpret data, even with familiar instruments

75
Q

How do differences in schools of thought arise?

A

scientists perceptions are influenced by their education and training. during paradigm shifts, scientists may need to be re-educated to perceive their environment in a new way, so there are changes in how scientists interpret their observations
after this re-education, the scientists pov may become incommensurable w their previous pov leading to differences between schools of thought

76
Q

What is a paradigm shift?

A

old paradigm (degenerative research programme) is replaced by a new, incompatible paradigm

77
Q

What is a degenerative vs progressive research programme? real

A

degenerative: a paradigm that doesnt allow researchers to make new predictions and that requires an increasing number of ad hoc modifications to account for the empirical findings
theory lags behind data

progressive: paradigm that allows researchers to make new, unexpected predcitiosn that can be tested empirically
theory keeps ahead of the data

FP 2 (3 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions