Philosophy of Science 7

philosophy of science def

philosophiscal critical reflection on what science is, does, and how it generates knowledge

Replication Crisis in Psychology

failure to replicate psychological studies

Epistemology broad

real knowledge comes from sensory experiences

rationalism broad

real knowledge is derived from the ratio, reason

associated claim with rationalism

there is innate knowledge = nativism

epistème

knowledge of how the things are

panta rhei

if in our world (the world we perceive with our senses) everything changes constantly, then nothing is, meaning we can only acquire doxa not epsiteme, amount to skepticism

doxa

opinion

associated claim with empiricism

if all knowledge comes from experience via perception, there is no innate knowledge

induction what is it

concluding- based on observations of some cases (but not all)

intuitive induction

understanding

middle ages broad

aristotle didnt approve of experiments because he wanted to observe the natural world, science came to a halt, thomas aquinas tried to unite christian teaching w pagan ideas of aristotle

plato

Rationalist

aristotle

Empiricist

bacon

scientific method, didnt have a problem with aristotelian view, but wanted to use experiments to learn about the natural world

Idols of the Tribe (Bacon)

Bacon's term for biases that result from human's natural tendency to view the world selectively.
Prejudices that we have as humans, visual illusions

Idols of the Cave (Bacon)

Bacon's term for personal biases that result from one's personal characteristics or experiences.
Prejudices that we have because we belong to a particular group, such as extreme conservatism

Idols of the Marketplace (Bacon)

Bacon's term for error that results when one accepts the traditional meanings of the words used to describe things.
Prejudices because we can talk about something like having words for something that is not real like luck or coincidence

Idols of the Theater (Bacon)

Bacon's term for the inhibition of objective inquiry that results when one accepts dogma, tradition, or authority.
Prejudices that we have because authorities say they are true

Rene Descartes

rationalist

Malin genie (Descartes)

demon that might be fooling you like in the matrix

rene descartes 2 methods

radical doubt, clear and distinct insight; where even malin genie cant fool you because everything you perceive clearly must be true

John Locke

empiricist, rejected inborn ideas and that empiricism cannot accept innate ideas and universal principles can be explained otherwise therefore they arent universal

john locke reformulated empiricist principle

experience is perception and reflection

John Locke qualities

we percieve qualities and they leave an idea in us, primary qualities are properties that exist on their own and are independent of any perciever for example water has a temperature but to call it hot or cold is a secondary quality

George Berkeley

all properties in the physical world depend on the mind, to be is to be perceived, called idealism,

David Hume

like locke, by perceiving the world we acquire knowledge
copy principle, Problem: we can only gain ideas from experience

Copy Principle (Hume)

All simple ideas are copies of impressions.

Analysis of Causation (Hume) priority of event a and b

a has to occur before b (can percieve)

Analysis of Causation (Hume) contiguity of event a and b

a and b are located near each other in time and space (can perceive)

Analysis of Causation (Hume) necessity

event b necessarily follows event a, it cannot be otherwise (this you cannot perceive)

analysis of causation (hume) explanation

an attempt to save knowledge, we cannot percieve necessity and this empiricists are not justified in using the idea of causality,
we use this concept in reasoning about our world.
induction is an invalid form of reasoning

Immanuel Kant

synthesis of rationalism and empiricism; in the combination of our senses and reason can knowledge arise

A priori judgments (Kant)

the truth of this statement is accessible without looking at the world "a brother is a man"

a posteriori judgment (kant)

in order to assess the truth or falsehood of this statement you need to investigate the world "there are 119 students in the class"

analytical judgment (kant)

such a judgment does not provide new knowledge, but analyzes what you already know

synthetic judgment (kant)

involve the combination of different concepts, and they add new information that is not already contained in the subject.

A priori synthetic knowledge (kant)

rationalism, possible, 2+3=5, the world is causally structured, everything in nature has a cause

a posteriori analytic knowledge

does not exist

a posteriori synthetic knowledge

empiricism

noumenal world

the world as it is independent of consciousness, we cant have knowledge about it

Phenomenal World (Kant)

the world as it appears to us

categories of reason (kant)

a collection of sensations could be anything, we need to put them into categories and one of these is substance, another is causality.

Positivism (Comte)

the application of the scientific approach to the social world.
Auguste Comte
ergo- we have to apply the method of science to social problems

Comte's law of three stadia, three stages

theological or fictional stage, metaphysical or abstract stage, positive real or scientific stage

theological or fictional stage (Comte)

characterized by a belief in supernatural beings and forces, God

metaphysical stage (Comte)

characterized by the attributing of forces, essences, powers to explain phenomena, life is explained by the fact that there is a life force in us

positive/positivist stage, scientific stage (Comte)

we explain phenomena by looking for causal and mechanical explanations

Hermeneutics

the branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation, especially of the Bible or literary texts.

says people are more than just physical objects and therefore need to be approached differently not by scientific method of the natural sciences

Verstehen method

emphasizes the importance of understanding social phenomena from the perspective of those involved. answers the question WHY. psychologists should try to establish the reasons WHY people behave in a certain way. hardly any in contemporary psychology because its not a scientific method

Ludwig Wittgenstein

into meaningful sentences. interested in the higher. aim was to separate sense and nonsense.

correspondence theory of truth and meaning (Ludwig Wittgenstein)

= picture theory of truth/meaning.
argues that language functions by representing states of affairs in the world through propositions, and these propositions are like pictures that mirror reality.
in order to see if the picture is true or false we must compare it with reality

meaningless sentences (Ludwig Wittgenstein)

if you cant figure out by looking at the world whether a sentence is true or false, then this

5 key points of logical positivists

1. rejection of meaningless statements
2. logic
3. positivism
4. unified science
5. the need for demarcation criterion

rejection of meaningless statements

LOGICAL POSITIVIST
meaninglessness-empty of meaning if one takes in the way that metaphysicians intended. meaningful statements are scientific statements and vice versa

logic (logical positivism)

-statements that describe reality directly are protocol statements (statements which are connected to each other through logic)
-important role
-(but logic is an instrument not a method to gain knowledge so its not synthetic a priori as kant argued)

positivism

LOGICAL POSITIVIST
2views; auguste comtes view, and that science is the only real source of knowledge which is the one that is accepted

unified science

LOGICAL POSITIVIST
-believed all scientists were working on one scientific theory about the world

demarcation criterion explanation

(LOGICAL POSITIVIST)
-statement or theory is scientific if it is verifiable and confirmable

demarcation criterions

-always true
-able to be checked in all cases
-able to be checked in most cases
-in principle be possibly wrong
-in accordance with rational thinking
-objective
-be able to be checked by the senses

evaluation of logical positivists

-no good demarcation, verifiability too strong and confirmability is too weak

Popper brief

can we save science from the irrationality of induction? can we come up with a better demarcation criterion than the logical positivists did? yes

popper

not logical positivist but accepted that experience was important for knowledge

what popper thought and kant didnt

math and tools that provide us new knowledge

Popper's method

first problem, then hypothesis, then you try to refute this hypothesis

poppers 4 properties of his falsification

1. human fallibility
2. falsifiability is the demarcation criterion
3. only falsifiable theories are informative
4. growth of knowledge is only possible via falsification (refutation)

human fallibility

(popper) we can only guess, newton was wrong and replaced by einstein

falsifiability is the demarcation critierion

(popper) mini theory that isnt falsifiable like tomorrow it will rain or not which may be true but its not science. truth, verifiability, confirmability all fail as possible criteria

only falsifiable theories are informative

(popper) prediction has to be the point

growth of knowledge is only possible via falsification (refutation)

(popper) induction is irrational but science is rational, scientists take a theory to be true as long as it is not falsified, scientific claims always have a hypothetical character, doesnt give a **** about meaningless claims, only has the demarcation criterion for separating scientific from pseudo-scientific claims

constructivism

observation is theoryladen(loaded) and reality becomes our own construction,

relativism

constructivism implies relativism, reality and truth are no longer to be taken at face value. if you accept a construct then something is true if it is relative to that construct.

Ludwig Wittgenstein second part

meaning of a word depends on its user, meaning is use. didnt think a private language can be real.rules have to be publicly accessible, you have to be able to tell when someone uses a word incorrectly.

thomas kuhn broad

didnt attempt to find another demarcation criterion but rather wanted a description of how science develops. without theory there is just chaos of phenomena

how did science start and change

kuhn, prescientific, normal;paradigm accepted, abnormal crisis, revolution;new paradigm

prescientific period

kuhn, activities but no organization. no structure or education system that we would call science

normal science

kuhn, paradigm accepted, assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like, paradigm never complete, always anomolies, progress by solving puzzles

abnormal science crisis

kuhn, too many problems, how this period ends? with either solving all of the problems or via scientific revolution

revolution

kuhn, new paradigm which worsens the crisis, often occurs when someone is aware of the crisis and comes up w a new paradihm

growth of knowledge kuhn

when you reject one paradigm and accept another

Kuhn vs. Popper

- first describes how things happen as a matter of fact, positive theory. This theory can change.
- second describes what we should be doing, "normative theory". Theory does not change.

kuhn vs feyerabend

-first= paradigms are a gestalt switch, you cannot turn back
-second=you can choose different paradigms/traditions

Feyerabands Epistemilogical Anarchism view

There are no rules of rational inquiry in science. Such rules would only be constraints on creativity, and science requires creativity.anything goes. science has a monopoly on knowledge aquisition which would be justified if we had access to objective facts but we dont.

feyerabend trait

not good to be too dogmatic (stubborn and confident) in science

consequences feyerabend

knowledge is a sea of alternatives; knowledge is a sea of incompatible alternatives. you should be able to study whatever you want like magic lol

Problems w/ relativism and constructivism 1

(kuhn) how can you know that 2 paradigms are incomparable

Problems w/ relativism and constructivism 2

claim "everything is relative" (general relativism) and "truth depends on the paradigm" (kuhns version) or "truth depends on the tradition" (feyerabend version) contain a contradiction : if everything is relative, then these statements are relative too, but that cannot be the case because they are supposed to be true in general

Problems w/ relativism and constructivism 3

-science isnt democratic - its not majority rules.

Lakatos

goal to rescue normativity of science. done by changing the notion of falsificationism from (1) dogmatic via (2) methodological, to (3) sophisticated falsificationism

lakatos on poppers and kuhn

poppers falsification not strong enough and kuhn denied progress

Assumptions of dogmatic falsificationism

every scientific theory is fallible
empirical basis is infallible
only on the basis of empirical data can you jduge a theory
scientific growth id through the rejection of theory based on observed facts. PROBLEM IS that there is no infallible empirical basis bc how do you know that the theory behind the observation is correct?

Lakatos' Falsification

-accepts the theory fullness of observation
-but claims that scientists can just accept the background theory
-means you can gather empirical data that conflicts w scientific theory (not background theory)
-rejection of a theory should not be seen as knowing it is false, but seen as conflicting with the accepted background theoyr.

scientific change according to Lakatos

-two professors w different programs talk and compare (opp of kuhn)
-heuristics, neg=tells what you are not allowed to do, not allowed to reject the core of a research program
pos=what you can do which is falsify claims in the protective belt ??

scientific realist

-scientific theory informs us about the unobservable reality
-good reasons to accept that the theory is approximately true
-scientific progress is possible
-approximately true clause, put in the claim because no one will say that scientific theories are without errors, popper: people make mistakes, are fallible
-explanatory power: we need good reasons to accept an explanation
-

Constructive Empiricism

constructive empiricismmmm has proponents of constructivism but these days its just a more sophisticated and less radical version of what kuhn and feyerabend thought... new person bas van fraassen made the constructive empiricism

explanatory power

scientific realist, we need good reasons to accept an explanation

pragmatism

knowledge serves a goal, knowledge and beliefs into actions

fixate beliefs?

(pragmatism)
-tenacity
-authority
-a priori method
-method of science

tenacity

(pragmatism, way of fixating belief) staying away from things that possibly may bring you to doubt anything, but its impossible youd have to be a hermit

authority

(pragmatism, way of fixating belief) you assume that the authorities in a group have knowledge about the world but there are always some people who wonder why we believe what we believe in a group