Philosophy of Science and Logic

Demarcation problem

How to distinghuish science from pseudo-science.

General philosophy

The first kind of philosophy of science, and is now a sub genre within this philosophy of science.

Philosophy of the special sciences

The philosophy of a specific discipline, like biology, psychology, cognitive science, etc. These are the sciences other than physics.

Logical empiricism

A philosophical view that says only statements verifiable by observation or logic are meaningful, rejecting metaphysics, theology, and ethics as cognitively meaningless.

When is a theory falsifiable?

A theory is falsifiable when:

• we can conceive of an observation or experimental result that would contradict or refute its predictions.

• its predictions are risky.

• it has a high empirical content.

What are the problems of Popper’s falsifiability?

• we can only falsify whole systems of hypotheses.

  • the experiments rely on assumptions, so if the experiment fails, you don’t know whether it is because the hypothesis is false or if the background conditions are wrong.

• we can introduce adjustments to save falsified theories.

  • Isn’t this like pseudoscience, that it can apply to everything?

What is Thagard’s Demarcation Principle?

A theory or discipline which purports to be scientific is pseudoscientific if and only if:

1. it has been less progressive than alternative theories over a long period of time, and faces many unsolved problems; but

2. the community of practitioners makes little attempt to develop the theory towards solutions of the problems, shows no concern for attempts to evaluate the theory in relation to others, and is selective in considering confirmations and disconfirmations.

Deductive inference

If the premisses are true, then the conclusion must be true as well.

A is B. B is C. Therefore, A is C.

It is a non-ampliative argument, which means that the conclusion of the argument is already contained in the premisses.

Inductive inference

The premisses are about objects that we have studied in order to draw a conclusion about an object that we haven’t studied.

-       Premisses: All X’s examined so far have been Y.

-       Conclusion: The next X to be examined will be Y; All X’s are Y.

Uniformity of Nature UN

The objects we draw conclusions on will behave in the same, or similar way, as the objects we did examine. This is the basis of inductive reasoning.

There is no rational justification for the UN.

Problem of Induction (Hume)

Induction can’t be rationally justified, but science relies on induction. If Hume is right about the fact that induction can’t be rationally justif*ied, then science can’t be rationally justified. Therefore, science is not as solid as we hoped that it would be.

Concept of probability

Even though the premisses don’t guarantee the truth of the conclusion, they make it probable.

Inference to the best explanation (IBE)

This is another form of non-deductive reasoning. There are multiple possibilities of hypotheses, but the conclusion is the most likely hypothesis.

Example: “[p1] The cheese in the larder has disappeared, apart from a few crumbs. [p2] Scratching noises were heard coming from the larder last night. [c] Therefore, the cheese was eaten by a mouse.”

Probability

Subjective probability: There are no objective facts about probability. This is not enough to solve Hume’s problem of induction, because: if there are no objective facts about probability, then we can’t say that the conclusions of inductive inferences are objectively probable.

Abduction

This is the inference to the best explanation. It is emplyed in everyday reasoning, and it happens both explicit and implicit.

Underdetermination arguments

A type of argument that argues that there is not enough evidence to favour one hypothesis over the other hypotheses.

Hypothetic-Deductive method (HD method)

• You formulate a hypothesis

• From the hypothesis, you derive implications about what would be detected in nature if the hypothesis were true.

• If the implications turn out to be the case, they confirm the hypothesis.

The covering law model of explanation (Hempel)

1)    The premisses should entail the conclusion à it must be a deductive argument.

2)    The premisses should all be true.

3)    The premisses should consist of at least 1 general law → e.g. all metal conduct electricity.

Schematic form:

General laws

Particular facts

→ explanans

---

= phenomenon to be explained explanandum

What are the problems of the covering law model of explanation?

• Problem of symmetry.

• Problem of irrelevance.