Philosophy of Science 6

Heliocentrism

Earth going around the sun

Geocentrism

Sun going around the Earth

Metaphysics

What there is (fundamental objects/properties) aka: ontology

The "moon test"

The demonstration that falling objects near the ground and the orbiting moon are affects of the same cause (gravity). If gravity reaches the moon, then the moon would have an elliptical shape which is what we observe

Epistemology

the study of knowledge

Empiricism

The source of knowledge is empirical (so observations and experiments ground knowledge). Sensory evidence grounds knowledge/observation.

Empirical

Idea that observations and experiments ground knowledge

Rationalism

The source of knowledge is reasoning (concept analysis and deductive reasoning are what ground knowledge). A priori reasoning/innate ideas ground knoweldge.

Doctrine of Clear and Distinct Ideas

Descartes' solution to confirm theories. It states that any idea that we can "perceive" clearly and distinctly must be true. Also any theories that come from truth-preserving "deductions" from those clear/distinct ideas will also constitute certain knowledge

Clear Ideas (as described by Descartes)

An idea that is present and assessable to the attentive mind (such as intuition) (aka: an idea that is perceived in its entirety and at great strength)

Distinct Ideas (as described by Descartes)

An idea that is perceived in isolation and without danger of confusion

Scientific Revolution

Starts with Copernicus' "De Revolutionibus" in 1543 and finishes with Newton's "Principia Mathematica" in 1687. Important scientists/philosophers during this time (in order): Copernicus, Bacon, Gilbert, Galileo, Kepler, Harvey, Descartes, and Newton.

Copernicus' Heliocentrism

Conceptually revolutionary because it forced contemporaries to confront the possibility that Earth does not have a special place in the universe

Kepler's Ellipses

Methodologically revolutionary because it is driven by data and not mathematical/metaphysical preconceptions

Newton's gravity

Maybe a "true" revolution in scientific knowledge and understanding because it unifies terrestrial and celestial physics

Descartes

Rationalist; Solution to devise a science to replace Aristotelian traditions of teaching: The Doctrine of Clear and Distinct Ideas; His method is motivated by epistemic concerns

Bacon

Empiricist; Solution to devise a science to replace Aristotelian traditions of teaching: Approach nature with questions and experiments designed to extract specific answers; He believes in the 4 sources of error in reasoning called the Idols; Believes that induction is the correct mode of scientific reasoning; His method: 1. make tables listing known correlations between phenomena 2. look for positive/negative patterns for correlation 3. design experiments to fill in gaps 4. eliminate all but a single cause

Bacon's Idols

1. Idol of the tribe: biases due to general features of being human (emotions affect the way we perceive/reason)
2. Idols of the cave: biases due to individual idiosyncrasies (putting a lot of labor in a piece makes you believe that it is good)
3. Idols of the marketplace: distortions that emerge from the conventions of human cultural interactions (our language simplifies nature and should not be a guide for the actual truths about the natural world)
4. Idols of the theatre: philosophical theories that shape our preconceptions about nature

Where does Newton stand on Bacon and Descartes' methods?

Newton opposed himself strongly to Descartes and embraced some of Bacon's methods of empiricism. Newton likes the idea of an explanation to be established based on empirical evidence (like Bacon) rather than guessing (like Descartes)

Deductive Reasoning

All As are Bs. This is an A. Therefore, this is a B. This is truth preserving (if its premises are true, then its conclusion is true). It is used in science with mathematical results (like proofs) and derivation of predictions (H-D deductive explanation)

Inductive Reasoning

This is an A. It is also a B (many times). Therefore, all As are Bs. It is not truth preserving and is limited by an observational sample.

Abductive Reasoning

All As are Bs. This is a B. Therefore, this is an A. It is deductively incorrect, even though it is commonly used in science. It is reasoning backwards from effects to causes.

Probabilistic Induction

This is an A. It is also a B (many times). Therefore, the probability of B, given A, is high. (This is not refuted by a counterexample)

Constant Conjunction

Pairs of things (such as "bread" and "nourishment") that are always observed together

Causality

A necessary connection, not just a mere connection

Bacons True Induction vs. Enumerative Induction (normal induction)

Bacon's true induction is meant to be more than enumerative induction because he hoped to avoid circumstantial bias by drawing out positive and negative correlations

Inference to the Best Explanation

An interpretation or analysis of of abduction, eve though it is not the only one

Truth perservation

Epistemically desirable because it conditionally ensures knolwedge

David Hume

An empiricist who argues that there is no justification for inductive reasoning. He believes that our knowledge must derive entirely from our sensory experience. He concluded that there are no non-circular justification for our inferences about causality

Problem of Induction

There is no non-circular justification for our inferences about causality, which means that any theory about how the world will be in the future, based on how the world was in the past, is based on induction. Since typical scientific theories are theories about how the world will be in the future based on the past, these theories are based on induction and are not truth preserving so these theories have a possibility of not being truthful statements.

Solutions to the Problem of Induction

1. Logic of Induction by the logical positivists - Look for structural principles that govern good inductive reasoning.
2. Falsification by Karl Popper - Science is not about confirming or justifying theories, but by falsifying them.
3. Bayesianism - probabilistic reasoning can be justified as a subjective theory for increasing certainty without insisting it will arrive at an incontrovertible truth.
(Hume does not solve the problem of induction, he just shows that the our inductive reasoning process is not rational)

Logical Positivists

Believe that science is the foremost form of knowledge;

Epistemically robust

Grounding scientific knowledge in empirical observations

Epistemically fragile

Cant be considered knowledge unless it can be reduced to or translated into claims about observation

Theoretical terms

Refers to objects or properties of hypothesized underlying (not directly observable) structure (like an electron)

Observational terms

Refers to objects or properties that can be observed (like the color red)

Observational sentences

Contain only observational terms

Theoretical sentences

May contain some or all theoretical terms

Context of Discovery

Daily practice of science - scientists do not care about the observational/theoretical distinction to go about their business (where history/psychology of science lay)

Context of Justification

Ex post facto analysis of science - the logical structure of scientific explanation and reasoning (aka logical analysis of scientific method). The project to reduce theoretical to observational statements is a part of context of justification (where philosophy of science lays)

Language-centrism

Use formal logic as a tool for philosophical science

Analytic Truth

True by definition ("all bachelors are unmarried")

Synthetic Truth

True (or not) in virtue of state of the world ("all swans are white")

Semantic Holism

Sentences are more or less difficult to revise in meaning (sentences are entrenched)

Verification Theory of Meaning (Verificationism)

The meaning of a sentence is the method by which it is verified. Scientific statements are meaningful because they can be verified, so debated that can't be resolved by the world are meaningless. This is the belief of the logical positivists

Formal Logic

?? It made correct reasoning as rigorous as mathematics; formal logical was now an area of mathematics according to the logical positivists

What do the logical positivists emphasize?

1. Logical analysis of science
2. Distinguishing meaningful from meaningless philosophical questions
3. Philosophy as a system of formal representations (language)
4. Sensory evidence as fundamental foundation for knowledge
IMPORT: LP's are interested in reducing theoretical statements into observational statements. This is because LPs believe that observations are more epistemically fundamental than theories so reducing theories to a set of observational claims gives a firm epistemic basis.

What is the logical positivist's goal, and what did they determine?

Formulate a solution to the recent scientific developments of the 20th century. They wanted to determine an epistemic distinction between hypothesized underlying structure and surface observational structure.
They determined that hypothesized underlying structure and surface observational evidence have different epistemic status. Hypothesized underlying structure is epistemically fragile and observational evidence is epistemically robust.

How to reduce theoretical terms and sentences to observational terms and sentences (according to the Logical Positivists)

Given theoretical terms and sentences, then bridge the terms and definitions then you have your observational terms

Problems with analytic and synthetic truths

1. All kinds of ordinary expressions violate the logical rules (such as "it is and it isn't")
2. Apparent analytical truths can be cognitively informative (such as "Paderewski is Paderewski")
3. Linguistic meaning can change
Quine pointed out that in the face of empirical evidence, the truth of any sentence may be revised

Problems with Verificationism

1. Partial verifications: some things you can't verify even though you can gather evidence for (such as "all swans are white")
2. Something can be verifiable in principle, but not in practice (like there is a green goose on a planet 60 billion light years away)

Hypothetico-Deductive Method vs. Hypothetico-Deductive Explanation

Method:
-Purpose: increase empirical support and confirm/falsify a theory
-What it is: Deduce the consequence of theory and perform an experiment to detect it
-Context of Discovery
Explanation
-Purpose: Explain observed phenomena and education of theory
-What it is: Start from na observed phenomena and educate about a theory
-Context of Jusification

Deductive Method of Testing

1. Scientistic conceives of or invents a theory
2. Scientist then determines consequences of the theory through logical deduction
3. Scientist then assesses these consequences for consistency and compatibility with other theories
4. Scientist determines singular statements (predictions) which are at odds without known theories
5. These statements are put to the empirical test
6. The results of the test generate new singular statements that are either consistent with the prediction (verificationism) or inconsistent with it (falsificationism)
This depends on a logical asymmetry between verification and falsification.

Dogmatism

The uncritical acceptance of beliefs without justification (opposed to critical attitude)

Popper's Critical Attitude

The one common method to philosophy and all rational discussion being that one's problem is stated clearly and the the solutions examined critically. Attitude is applied in science through empirical tests and provides the basis for falsification.

Psychology of knowledge

Deals with empirical facts, such as how a particular scientist arrived at his/her theory

Logic of knowledge

Deals with logical relations; concerned with justification of validity. Popper believes that induction is not part of logic of knowledge

Demarcation Problem

The problem is to find a criterion which would enable us to distinguish between the empirical sciences and mathematics/logic/metaphysical systems

Inductive Logic

The logic of inferences from singular statements to universal statements

Inductivism

The view that the logic of science is inductive

Deductivism

The view that the logic of science is deductive

Corroboration

If a theory withstands detailed and severe tests and is not superseded then it is corroborated.

What does the logical positivists criterion of the demarcation require?

The logical positivist criterion of demarcation requires that all statements of empirical science be verifiable or falsifiable by statements of experience

Why does Popper reject induction as justifiable and believe that it must be possible for an empirical scientific system to be refuted by experience?

Popper believes that it must be possible for an empirical scientific system to be refuted by experience because singular statements obtained from experience should be able to serve as premises in falsifying inferences. Singular statements are justified by relevant experience and cannot be doubted because of the truth these statements have on account of experience. He also believes that these statements must be capable of being tested, even though they don't necessarily have to be tested.

Popper's View on the growth of knowledge

Ways theories can contribute to the growth of knowledge:
-Evolutionary Story: Choose a theory that best holds in competition with other theories and proves itself fittest to survive
-Universality Story: The theory with the greater explanatory and predictive power (more empirical info/content and can be more severely tested by comparing hypotheses with observations)
-Fruitfulness Story: Theory that raises new problems
-induction is not part of the logic of knowledge

Logical Positivists Solution to the Demarcation Problem

Logical empiricists believe that the only concepts/statements that are "derived from experience" are legitimate/scientific. Therefore, math and logic are not scientific knowledge and metaphysical statements are not knowledge. Also, no universal generalizations can be reduced to statements of experience, because that would be inductive knowledge.

Problem with Popper's Falsification

Since the prediction of Newton's theory of gravitation was falsified by observation (by Einstein), scientists had a reason to reject the theory. However, scientists never fully rejected Newton's gravitation theory.

Normal Science

Characterized by a set of "received beliefs" (paradigms) about how the world is and science is done in which scientists attempt to solve puzzles using the resources of their paradigm

Paradigm

A set of received beliefs about how science is done

Scientific Revolution (according to Kuhn)

Basic principle of science. Anomalies accumulate until a previous paradigm can no longer be maintained which eventually leads the discipline to adopt new commitments (aka new paradigm).

Kuhnian Paradigm

Some significant achievement which is taken as foundational in the field and determines problems/methods used by succeeding generations of practitioners. This achievement must be open-ended for the paradigm method's to create a new solution.

Anomaly

Something that deviates from the norm; when nature has somehow violated the paradigm-induced expectations that govern normal science it is called an anomaly

State of Growing Crisis

The state that science is in when persistent anomalies eventually overcome the resistance of scientists bound within a paradigm and lead to a breakdown of the normal science puzzle-solving activity of scientists.

Incommensurability

The incompatibility of the normal scientific tradition that emerges from a scientific revolution

Kuhn Losses

The facts form a previous paradigm that are lost when transitioning to a new paradigm

Theory Choice

The choice between paradigms (however it is a matter of persuasion, not values/premises/logic/experiment). The values that determine theory choice cannot be decided on the basis of the evaluative procedures of normal science; it is determined by the values that come from outside the paradigm (this change must occur all at once, or not at all). Kuhn believes that theory choice is objective

What does normal science consist of? 3 ways that scientists attempt to solve problems by their shared paradigm

1. Extending knowledge of facts that established the paradigm
2. Increasing the extent of match between predictions and those facts above
3. Further articulating the paradigm itself

Scientists operating within a paradigm do not aim to:

1. Discover unexpected new phenomena
2. Invent new theories
3. Extend the paradigm to encompass other phenomena

Puzzle solving analogy for what normal science is

Normal science is like puzzle solving, where the problems of normal science are considered "puzzles" and scientists within that paradigm are considered the "puzzle-solvers"

Kuhn's Main Arguments

1. Values determine the outcome of scientific revolutions
2. Progress through scientific revolutions is non-cumulative
What the majority of people think/though about science (which Kuhn argues against):
- 1. Rationality is rule governed
- 2. Progress is cumulative

Kuhn's Values or "objective" characteristics of a good scientific theory (which determine the outcome of scientific revolutions)

*These are the criteria of theory choice
1. Accuracy: theoretical consequences should be in an agreement with empirical results
2. Consistency: should be internally and externally consistent
3. Broad scope: should make novel predictions
4. Simplicity: should bring order to desperate phenomena
5. Fruitfulness: should lead to new research findings
Kuhn believes that these 3 things are imprecise and conflict with one another when applied as a criterion of theory choice, so these characteristics are values, not rules. Rules determine choice whereas values influence choice.

Kuhn describes discoveries emerging in what 3 steps

1. Previous awareness of anomaly
2. Gradual and simultaneous emergence of both observational and conceptual recognition
3. Change of paradigm categories and procedures (often accompanied by resistance)

How Kuhn thinks science proceedes

1. Pre-science and the establishment of a paradigm
2. Puzzle-solving during normal science
3. Accumulation of anomalies and crisis
4. Scientific Revolution
*A paradigm can only be declared invalid if an alternative candidate is available to take its place
**Scientists should never renounce their paradigm when confronted by severe and prolonged anomalies

Transition between incommensurabilities

The change between 2 paradigms

How does Kuhn believe science progresses?

Kuhn believes that science makes progress through revolutions even though he believes that scientific knowledge is not cumulative. Normal science progresses by the solving of puzzles.

According to Kuhn, how does science progress through revolutions?

2 ways science progresses:
1. The new paradigm must promise to resolve some problem that seemingly cant be solved another way
2. The new paradigm must preserve a large part of the prior paradigm's problem solving ability

Way science progresses from one theory to another theory (Theory Change), according to Kuhn

Normal science -> Crisis -> Revolution -> Normal Science
<--Theory 1--------------------><------------Theory 2------>
Theory change is objective. It is governed by publicly available values

Logic of Science

Provides rules for when to accept or reject a theory; it would be an account of scientific rationality (like falsification, verification, and confirmation)

The Hard Core of a Theory

The basis of a theory that often does not include any empirical consequences (for example, Newtons 3 laws of gravity in the Newtonian Gravitational Theory is the hard core)

Protective Belt of Auxiliary Hypothesis

The generalizations that connect the hard core to the observation, but can be easily falsified thus insulating the entire theory from falsification

Ad hoc

coming up with an alternative to fix the problem, but doing nothing more

Progressive Alteration

An alteration to the protective belt that leads to a novel preduction

Degenerative Alteration

An alteration to the protective belt that leads to no novel predictions

Scientific Research Programme

Lakatos' solution to the problems of rationality and progress in science. He believed that you needed more than just a theory; you needed a sequence of scientific theories.
The research programme includes a sequence of scientific theories which shares the theoretical "hard core" and consists of a "protective belt" of auxiliary hyptheses that may change in light of anomalies.
There are two methodological injunctions:
1. Negative heuristic: "Do not change the hard core"
2. Positive heuristic: "In case of falsifying evidence, modify the auxiliary hypothesis is such and such ways" (prevents falsification)

Research Tradition

Lauden's solution to the problems of rationality and progress in science. It is similar to Kuhn's paradigms and Lakatos' research programme.
A research tradition exhibits certain metaphysical and methodological commitments which individuate the research tradition and distinguish it from others.
Lauden believes that it is rational to accept a theory with more problems (both conceptual and empirical)

Degenerative alterations vs progressive alterations in a research programme

A research programme with progressive alterations is rational to accept whereas a research programme with degenerative alterations should be abandoned

How is Lakatos similar to Popper?

He embraces falsificationism in order to solve problems

How is Lauden similar to Kuhn?

Lauden emphasizes problem solving to solve the problems of rationality and progress. They both believe that progress in non-cumulative

What problems does Lauden's Research Tradition Face?

1. Empirical Problems (like a Kuhnian anomaly)
-anything odd (or in need of explanation) in the natural world constitutes an empirical problem
-empirical problems are first order problems (being that they are substantive questions about the objects which constitute the domain of any given science)
2. Conceptual problems (arise in 2 ways: internal and external)
-Internal: when a theory is internally inconsistent or its basic categories are vague/unclear
-External: When a theory is in conflict with another theory

Problem Solving Effectiveness according to Lauden

The problem solving effectiveness of a theory is determined by the number/importance of the empirical problems that a theory solves and by the number/importance of the anomalies and conceptual problems the theory generates. Progress only occurs if the scientific theories shows an increasing degree of problem solving effectiveness.