POS part 1

Positivism

: apply the method of natural science to social problems (sociology) by establishing principles of positive thinking.

Realistic assumption

: theres a world existing independently from us which we can gain knowledge about.

Positivism

: apply the method of natural science to social problems (sociology) by establishing principles of positive thinking.

Realistic assumption

: theres a world existing independently from us which we can gain knowledge about.

Psychology

is a science (looks for causes of mental disorder without hocus pocus shit)

Metaphysical microscope

: to understand an idea, it must be broken down (meaningless if not possible)

Verification

is gathered via the senses (neutral experiences; good foundation for science)

Scientific theory

is sound if it provides falsifiable predictions which arent falsified.

Constructivism

: there may be more than one scientific theory which is also empirically adequate.

Popper

- there is a problem, postulate a conjecture, attempt to falsify.

Kuhn

argues that growth may only occur within paradigm.

Confirmability

: accepts too much as science.

Scientific statements

are always hypothetical, conjectural, and conditional.

Introspectionism

: crisis because no research into animal minds was possible.

Good science

= only foundation of making scientific progress (based on experience and observation)

Induction

: knowledge when able to provide causal explanation.

Rational way

of using deduction: accepting a theory as long as its not falsified.

Theological

(fictional): mind supposes all phenomenon can be produced by immediate action of supernatural beings (animism, polytheism, monotheism)

methodological epistemological anarchism

Anything goes: (difference between science and pseudoscience is artificial)

Heuristics

: methodological ways to find answers to problems (when observations contradict theory)

Protocol sentences

(describe reality directly) are observable and all connected through logic (way to foolproof theory)

Hermeneutic circle

: understanding others by moving back and forth between the individual, their expression, and cohort theyre part of.

anti realist

PROBLEM for PSYCHOLOGIST: being means that one believes psychology studies behavior and not the psyche.

Substance

: problematic as this cant be experienced (can exist on its own)

Erklären

: in terms of cause and effect (how does X happen)

Incommensurability

thesis: paradigms arent rationally comparable (will never know whether paradigm shift takes us closer to the truth as there are no facts that can be used to decide which one is better)

Theory of knowledge

real knowledge 1) justified and 2) consists of a true belief

Epistème

true reflection of how things are

Doxa

opinions of how things are

Induction

knowledge when able to provide causal explanation

Intuitive induction

induction only 1st step, as a 2nd step we can establish abstractions are necessarily true; tell with our mind that universal notions must be true and therefore knowledge

Radical doubt

anything that can be doubted is uncertain, malin genie

BUT

I think, therefore I am is 100% true (one needs to exist to be fooled)

Clear and distinct insight

must be true (god is good and physical world exists)

Empiricist principle

all our ideas and mental representations stem from perception and reflection, together constituting experience

Ideas

what knowledge consists of

Simple

uniform appearance

Complex

composed of several simple ones

Mode

cant subsist by themselves; always depend on other ideas

Relation

comparing one idea with another

Substance

problematic as this cant be experienced (can exist on its own)

Qualities

properties we attribute to objects

Primary

exist on their own (absolute water temp)

Secondary

dependent on observer (subjective measure water temp)

Idealism

reality is essentially mental

Copy principle

world leaves impressions on us, resulting in ideas in our minds (copies)

Metaphysical microscope

to understand an idea, it must be broken down (meaningless if not possible)

Analysis of causality

we can only have knowledge about matters of fact when we can have knowledge of causality

FAIL

form of inductive reasoning

AGREE

cant know about causality because we cant determine the truth of general statements with our senses

DISAGREE

synthesis leads to knowledge

Look for synthetic a priori statements

origin in the human mind, but also add info about the world

Noumenal world

reality as it is (lack sensory evidence)

Phenomenal world

constructed out of sensations in our consciousness (all of our knowledge refers to this)

Forms of sensation (time and space)

not enough

Categories of reason (categorization)

sensations are collections of experiences, need to be adequately ordered to be interpreted

Copernican turn

we impose structure on the world via perception and categorization, making knowledge a priori (world has to appear to us in forms of sensation and categories of reason)

Positivism

apply the method of natural science to social problems (sociology) by establishing principles of positive thinking

Theological (fictional)

mind supposes all phenomenon can be produced by immediate action of supernatural beings (animism, polytheism, monotheism)

Metaphysical (abstract)

attribution of forces, essences, and powers to explain phenomena

Positivist (real/scientific)

reasoning and observation means of knowledge; used to find mechanical explanations

Dualistic methodology

sciences are essentially distinct

Erklären

in terms of cause and effect (how does X happen)

Verstehen

in terms of reasons (why does X happen)

Hermeneutic circle

understanding others by moving back and forth between the individual, their expression, and cohort theyre part of

Contemporary hermeneutics

Verstehen cant be an objective method (we interpret others from our own POV)

Neo-positivists

no statements can be made about inner lives of others with absolute certainty ( behaviorism only legit method)

Hempel

one can only understand psychological issues one has experienced themselves (otherwise no good scientist)

Truth

claims or beliefs must correspond to reality

Meaning

one should be able to establish the truth/falsehood of the claim

Reject meaningless statements

scientific statements should be meaningful

Logic

instrument to assess the soundness of a theory, not a method to gain knowledge with (analytic a priori)

Unification of science

all scientists work together on one scientific theory to explain the world

Premise 1

general statement assessing law/rule (all swans are white)

Premise 2

starting statement (this is a swan)

Conclusion/prediction

logically follows a deductive statement/prediction (this swan is white)

PROBLEM

context of the discovery and justification of the universal law one starts with (all swans are white)

Need of DC

separating scientific/meaningful statements from unscientific/meaningless ones

Verifiability

accepts too little as science

Confirmability

accepts too much as science

Deductive-nomological model requires a nomological (general) statement to start with

found through induction (not justifiable according to Hume)

Semi-solution

we can formulate general claims based on our sociological and psychological preferences (seeker is allowed any method but it should stand up to testing)

Duck-rabbit

we cant establish which way of looking at the picture is correct, because the sensory data fits both theories (underdetermination of theories)

AGREED

experience is important for knowledge (LP were too radical cuz ratio is too)

LP

science from observation to general laws and to confirmation of those laws (both via induction) within context of their discovery and justification

Popper

there is a problem, postulate a conjecture, attempt to falsify

Falsificationism

the truth cant be DC (even though pseudo-science and real science are vastly different)

Human fallibility

dont know, can only guess

Falsifiability is DC

statements (or systems) must be capable of conflicting with possible/conceivable observations

Only falsifiable theories are informative

prediction must be definitive (no ‘‘there may be) and informative (no ‘‘…or not)

Growth of knowledge only via falsification

corroboration (support of claim) isnt inductive evidence as induction isnt rational (which science should be)

Inborn ideas

every organism has inborn reactions/responses adapted to impeding events (expectations which arent necessarily conscious)

Critical rationalism

inborn expectations make us dogmatic thinkers and industry machines (hyperactive pattern detection, confirmation bias)

Rational way of using deduction

accepting a theory as long as its not falsified

Language game

words used and have meaning relative to certain social context in which theyre being used (factual claims only true/false relative to language game)

Premise 1

meaning of language depends on reference

Premise 2

inverted spectrum

Rules should be publicly accessible

if not, one could become unintelligible

Accidentally created a norm

science always has a paradigm

Prescientific (0)

unorganized, no structure or scientific activity

Normal science (1)

paradigm by which science is organized is accepted, predicated on assumption that scientific community knows what the world is like (describing what happens)

Solving puzzles

progress mostly accomplished like this