History, theme 4

epistemology

a special branch of philosophy that deals with evaluating the claims of knowledge

Realism

knowledge comes from reality

• reality is made up of basic facts, which we capture in observation statements —> these statements, linked logically, create theories (mental blueprints of the world) —> language mirrors reality

idealism

knowledge comes from the mind (opposite of realism) —> truth = coherence, so for something to be true it needs to fit within the system of beliefs

relativism

there is not one single truth, if knowledge comes from the mind it is subjective and differentiates between groups and cultures (social constructs)

convergent realism

if theories keep working and expanding maybe they’re getting closer to the truth (way fo defending realism)

Laudan (critic of realism)

even false theories can be useful, just because a theory works doesn’t mean it is true (describes reality)

pragmatism

knowledge is functional and interactive, truth is what works in real life —> middle ground between realism & idealism

—> mind and world work together in shaping our knowledge & it is not objective nor personal

Wilfrid Sellar’s 2 images

• the manifest image

• the scientific image

  —> these 2 are in conflict with each other

the manifest image

the common-sense view of the world (feelings, colors, objects etc) —> a table is a useful often wooden object

the scientific image

the world as science describes it (atoms, molecules, forces etc.) —> a table is atoms.

4 ways of dealing with the 2 images conflict

• they’re the same thing (very wrong)

• the manifest image is real (science just simplifies it)

• the scientific image is real (the manifest image is just an illusion)

—> fourth was added by Sellars, event though they agreed with the third one:

• both images are real (we should see them as working together instead of as enemies)

characteristics of scientific method (8)

• systematicity

• well-defined methods

• reduction

• objectivity

• clarity

• revisability

• classification = crucial

• explanation = central

systematicity (characteristic of the scientific method)

theories must be broad, coherent and applicable to multiple cases

Well-defined methods (characteristic of scientific method)

methods that have clear rules on what we can view as valid knowledge

reduction (characteristic of scientific method)

reducing difficult phenomena into basic principles, to make it easier to explain

objectivity (characteristic of scientific method)

knowledge must be observable, repeatable and not dependent on one person’s point of view

clarity (characteristic of scientific method)

scientific language must be clear and public

revisability (characteristic of scientific method)

scientific knowledge can always change in light of new evidence

classification = crucial (characteristic of scientific method)

organizing of knowledge to make science work (classifying a whale as a mammal, based on its biological factors) —> not just putting a label on things, but with actual purpose

explanation = central (characteristic of scientific method)

science often uses unobservable entities to explain what we can observe (atoms, the unconscious etc) even if this departs from our everyday understanding

knowledge

helps us understand the world, so we can act effectively in it

science

a more systematic, controlled version of knowledge (goes deeper into why things happen, not just what happens)

deductive argument

and argument in which the conclusion will be definitely supported (men and mice example) —> deductive reasoning guarantees truth, as long as the structure is valid and the premises are true

premises

statements

validity

the structure of form of the argument

truth

whether the content of the premises actually reflect reality

Euclid’s geometry

a logical system built from a few self-evident truths, from which all other truths were deducted

inductive argument

an argument that is not logically conclusive —> the premises support the conclusion but do not guarantee it

inductive generalization

you move from a small sample to a general rule

strength of an inductive argument depends on 3 things:

• size and quality of the evidence

• relevance of the data

• consistency of the pattern

The raven paradox

all ravens are black, so all non-black things are not ravens (technically correct but a strange way of deducting it)

abduction

a kind of reasoning in which an explanatory hypothesis is derived from a set of facts and has the following structure —> If S is the case then R (the streets are wet, it may have rained)

logic of discovery

the testing and finding rules and criteria for hypotheses

2 aspects of science

• context of discovery (How is the scientific idea formed?)

• context of justification (Why should the theory be accepted?)

Francis Bacon’s empiricism

gathering pure observations to uncover scientific laws ( but science is not just observations but also imaginative and theoretical) —> empirist are against using unobservable entities (personality, energy etc) to explain something, science should be based on observable facts

theory-leadenness of observations

observations are always partly determined by one’s theoretical assumption

theory

a set of statements that organizes, predicts and explains observations

law

an empirical generalization (all laws are generalizations but not al generalizations are laws)

theoretical law

laws with unobservables

empirical laws/generalizations

laws in which observables occur

model

a simplified representation of a theory which helps us visualize, understand and explain something. (diagrams, metaphors, computer stimulations etc)

David Hume’s causality

the experience of two events happening together repeatedly

causal laws

laws that connect events in a way that explains why one event leads to another

Nagel’s 4 conditions for causal laws

• invariable relation: the cause must be both a necessary and sufficient condition for the effect

• cause and effect must be in the same domain (connected)

• the cause must precede the effect and be temporally close to it

• asymmetry: the cause leads to the effect, not the other way around

interventionism

a cause is seen as something that can be experimentally intervened upon to see how it affects and outcome

De Groot’s empirical cycle

• observation

• induction

• deduction

• testing

• evaluation

—> the cycle is continuous, theories evolve in response to new data

observation

empirical data is collected and organized

induction

an hypotheses is formulated

deduction

deriving predictions from the hypothesis

testing

predictions are tested against new data

evaluation

the test results are analyzed to refine or revise the original theory

Robert K. Merton’s CUDOS

• Communalism

• Universalism

• Disinterestedness

• Organized Skepticism

communalism

scientific knowledge should be shared (communal)

universalism

scientific claims should be evaluated based on universal, objective criteria (to not be judged on race, nationality etc.)

Disinterestedness

scientists should act objectively and not for personal gain

Organized Skepticism

all scientific ideas should be subjected to critical evaluation before being accepted