Data and (mis)information lecture 2 - main concepts

Ontology

The study of being/what exists.
The starting point: do facts/reality exist independently of us?

Realism

Things have a mind-independent existence; there is a world out there

If facts exist independently, we can ask what it means for a statement to be true

Correspondence theory of Truth (intuitive conjecture)

Realism

A statement is true if it corresponds to the facts

But then: how do we know the facts?

Anti-realism/ontological idealism

Reality is not necessarily independent of our perception; knowledge in subjective

Challenges the realist idea of objective facts

Coherence theory

Anti-realism

A statement is true if it is consistent with other statements/beliefs

Focusses on whether beliefs fit together, rather than whether they match reality

Pragmatism

Truth is connected to what is useful/works in our thinking

Combines elements of correspondence and coherence

Epistemology

The study of knowledge: how do we know things?

Comes after ontology: if facts exist, how can we gain knowledge about them?

Dogma

Epistemology option 1

Something is accepted as true because of an authority or belief

One possible way of claiming knowledge, but not reliable scientific verification

Positivism/scientific method

Epistemology option 2

Knowledge comes from observation and verification

Formal/logical verification (you can evaluate it to be true or false) and Empirical verification

Empirical verification

Using observations that support a claim

Problem: observations cannot logically prove a general claim

Induction

Moving from specific observations to general conclusions
Example: 200 white swans —> ‘‘all swans are white’’

Affirming the consequent

Invalid reasoning: If A is true, then B is true. B is true, therefore A is true.

Shows why some inductive reasoning is logically invalid

Critical rationalism/falsificationism

We cannot prove empirical claims are true; instead we should try to falsify them

Response to the problem with induction

May seem like a slippery slope

Modus tollens

If A is true, then B is true. B is NOT true, therefore A is not true.

Corroboration

A claim has survived attempts to falsify it

We should say corroborated, not ‘proven‘

Verisimilitude

Truth-likeness; how close a claim seems to the truth

Stronger corroboration —> higher truth value/verisimilitude

Post-truth

Objective facts/evidence have less influence then emotions, beliefs and narratives

Deduction

Reasoning from a general rule to a specific observation.

All swans are white —> this swan is white

The slippery slope of idealism

If anything goes, don’t we open up the floodgates to post-truth and alternative facts?

self-criticism

you will need to sometimes (dogmatically) trust expertise you don’t have yourself, even if it conflicts with your own presuppositions or conclusions