PHIL EXAM 1
Q1. The reading “What is Philosophy?” gives several pairs of concrete examples to contrast the kinds of questions asked in philosophy and the kinds of questions asked in other areas of study (e.g., “physicists ask what caused some event; philosophers ask whether causation even exists”). Come up with your own, original pair of questions that show how philosophy is different from other areas of study.
Philosophical: What is the ultimate goal in life?
Science (Psychology): Why does learning about ourselves and the way we think help us live better lives?
Also: What is evil, what causes a person to do evil things?
Why are people naturally interested in philosophical questions compared to other topics?
Q2. The reading “What is Philosophy?” talks about the methods used to answer philosophical questions and how they might differ from methods used in other areas of study. Explain, in as much detail as possible, how you think you should go about answering the two example questions you came up with in Q1.
(First 2 questions I have in there because I added three)
For both questions, I would answer them by first defining words like “ultimate” and “better” and then creating specific theories that may go along with answering the question. For example, one would think that goals could be happiness, friendship, or knowledge, or maybe learning about ourselves can help us solve various problems before they even happen. Then the best way forward would be making specific arguments proving your claim, while also having it backed later on by social experiments.
Q3. In section 1 of “Philosophy and Its Contrast with Science” there is a bulleted list of 4 distinctions between philosophy and science. Choose one of the distinctions from the list. Thoroughly and clearly explain the distinction in your own words. As part of your explanation, make sure to:
1. Use the definitions given in the reading.
2. Come up with your own concrete examples that help illustrate the distinction.
3. Logically connect all the parts.
One distinction between philosophy and science is that science studies physical objects, while philosophy can study both physical and abstract objects, however mostly abstract. For example, science can study topics like ecosystems, plants and animals. Plants and animals can be tested on which ecosystems best fit their lifestyles. Philosophy can not be tested, and it can leave you questioning the truth and morality of a question or statement. Science is provable and what we can observe physically, while philosophy asks about reality and meaning in the world.
More notes:
Empirical (a posteriori) knowledge vs. a priori knowledge
Knowledge based on observation (i.e. the earth is round) vs. knowledge based on intuition, beyond the observable (murder is wrong)
Is the death penalty wrong? (philosophical question, it is an opinion and beliefs can sway it)
Contingent truths vs. necessary truths
The gravitational constant has some value is a truth that has a verifiable and observable answer. You can observe how things actually turn out as it is not a definitive answer.
Necessary truths use logic and are something that has to be true. 2+2=4, it can not be any different due to rules of logic.
Q4. This is a philosophy course, not a science course. But it has something to do with science- it will be a philosophy course ABOUT science. But what does this mean? Based on the readings, what kinds of topics and questions do you think this course is about and why?
It is about philosophy and its relationship to science, and how a statement that is related to philosophy can then later be backed up or corrected by science. It will focus mainly on the learning about the broad topic of philosophy but also connected back to science and its various components.
what do you think the difference is between pseudo-science and non-science? Quote which part of the reading you are basing your answer on. As part of your answer, give an example of something that would be categorized as pseudo-science and something that would be categorized as non-science but not as pseudo-science (make sure you can explain why they would be categorized this way).
The biggest and simplest takeaway is that science is real and pseudo science is fake. Science works because it’s testable, falsifiable, and open to being wrong, while pseudo-science avoids being tested and is unable to change opinions due to personal experiences. Paragraphs 5 and 6 in the reading is what I used.
Examples for a pseudo science include astrology/zodiac signs, as they claim stars and planets influence your personality or future, even though it's not testable.
Art and music is about creativity and expression, not about making certain testable claims and it’s not pretending to be science, so it’s not pseudo-science.
Pseudo science is basically an insult to science of which it's trying to be.
Stemwedel discusses why Karl Popper believes it is important to define science properly. Quote the passage that discusses this and then explain it in your own words. Come up with your own concrete example to use in your explanation that shows me that you understand Popper’s point.
“Of course, Popper wouldn’t be going to the trouble of trying to spell out what separates science from non-science if he didn’t think there was something special on the science side of the line. He seems committed to the idea that scientific methodology is well-suited — perhaps uniquely so — for building reliable knowledge and for avoiding false beliefs. Indeed, under the assumption that science has this kind of power, one of the problems with pseudo-science is that it gets an unfair credibility boost by so cleverly mimicking the surface appearance of science.”
Popper thinks it’s important to define science properly because science is good at finding truths and avoiding mistakes through testing and experimentation. Pseudo-science looks like real science at first glance, but it doesn't do what science does, it just copies the “look” of science. This can trick people into giving it the same credibility as science, even though it doesn’t deserve it.
Real science about nutrition uses experiments, collects data, and is open to being proven wrong .
A fad diet, like “eating only grapefruit will detox your body,” uses the same language as science but it is only an unverifiable trolling claim trying to get clicks.
We need to clearly define science so people can tell the difference between reliable knowledge (nutrition science) and misleading imitations (fad diets).
Science is a good way at getting the truth, and it's important (if you want the truth) to be fooled by pseudo science.
Stemwedel writes that the big difference between science and pseudo-science is a difference in attitude. In your own words, summarize and explain all the differences in attitude between science and pseudo-science. Come up with your own concrete examples to use in your explanation.
Pseudo science seems very ignorant and rushing compared to science, which is more methodical and open to taking advice. Pseudo science are the people that hate for no reason and make bold claims on why the Giants are winning the Super Bowl, even though that's not happening. Science looks at the data and gives direct data to prove these people humbly wrong while also making more probable claims like the Eagles winning the super bowl, and if that doesn't happen they will happily be proved wrong while pseudo science will keep on talking.
Based on the above question, clearly and thoroughly explain how chemistry can be either a science or pseudoscience depending on the context. Make sure to use concrete examples as part of your explanation.
Science: “The larger tablet will take a shorter amount of time to dissolve.” This claim is falsifiable and open to being wrong due to easy tests that can be done.
Pseudo Science: “Drinking this potion created in a chemistry lab will prevent you from getting any diseases” this is a claim that's not testifiable and blatantly wrong, with no concrete evidence to support it, as they are just making claims just because they can.
Class Notes:
Philosophical questions → usually ask about what should be, what is best, or what is right/wrong. (Normative)
Empirical (a posteriori) vs. priori, knowledge obtained after observation vs. knowledge obtained before observation. (Before example, a math problem)
Contingent truth vs. necessary truth (example for contingent: I woke up at 8 o clock but i did not have to, and that can be affected by what you do the night prior or if you set an alarm, so it shows it didn't have to be that way, and it's a fact that it did) (example for necessary: opposite, no matter how things play out, it's always going to be true, nothing will happen tonight that will change the fact that 2+2 will equal 4 tomorrow)
Descriptive vs. Evaluative
Descriptive means how you describe and observe something that is a known fact
Evaluative means describing the way things should be (in terms of good/bad right/wrong)
(its sunny outside (descriptive), it is bad when it is sunny (evaluative))
Physical objects vs. Abstract objects
Physical objects are something you can touch and feel like a water bottle.
Abstract objects are things in your head, and is a concept, like the number 1)
Falsification is having the right kind of attitude
Seeking evidence that falsifies your theory (science) vs. seeking evidence that confirms your theory.
Taking risks by making bold predictions/claims (science) vs. not (pseudoscience)
Yet to be proven false vs. proven true
You have to be willing to let go of your theory when proven false
Example: saying you're the best in the world at golf, but don't put yourself against the best competition and then you challenge a bunch of 6 year olds and beat them. (opposite of the use of falsification)
Chemistry can be either science or pseudoscience depending on the context. If the activity/person/group in question is failing to do one of the things from the science list from Q3 or above, then they are doing pseudoscience.
Q1. Explain what Freud and Marx should have done differently if they were doing science the way Einstein was. Be as specific and concrete as possible.
They needed to make testable predictions that could eventually make them wrong instead of always accepting the fact that they are right but will humiliatingly get proved wrong later down the line. It's better to make mistakes and change your work instead of misleading people to think you are right.
Do what is on the science list from the last class.
Q2. In your own words, explain the problem with falsificationism according to the reading. Use your own concrete example as part of your explanation.
If someone's work has been falsified, they trash that work immediately, no matter how big the mistake. However when doing that, there still may be some good parts of that work that could be used later down the line or in other experiments. It's almost embarrassing to someone when they do something wrong, and societal pressure may tell them to give up, even if what they were doing before had potential.
If we have rejected every falsified theory, then we would not have made much scientific progress, we have to build off of failed theories in order to get to the right ones.
Problems?
“You have to be willing to let go of your theory when proven false”
If you have data that contradicts your theory, something has to be rejected, but it also could be the data, or it could be something else (some assumption you’re making about the data, the theory, the connection between the two, etc.)
Sometimes it can be useful/successful to hold onto your theory to try to show it is still correct.
Q3. In your own words, explain the concept of confirmation bias. As part of your explanation, use a concrete example from your personal life (either an example of a time you noticed your own confirmation bias, or you noticed it in someone else).
Confirmation bias is when someone believes in something, they will try their best to seek out information that proves their point, even if it is not totally accurate and ignorant of other information they look past because it may prove them wrong. An example of this in my life is when I told my mom I wanted dessert before my basketball game when I was seven. I told her sugar gave me more energy to run, but I was ignoring all of the other factors of what this dessert would do to me, as I know now that it would probably make my stomach hurt when I play.
Interpret information in a way that supports your view
Accepting supporting information, and rejecting contradicting information
Politics… huge example of confirmation bias
Q4. In your own words, explain the ad hoc fallacy. As part of your explanation, use a concrete example from your personal life (either an example of a time you committed the fallacy, or you witnessed someone else committing the fallacy).
It's when a person invents a new excuse/unsupported explanation out of thin air and uses it to defend a position that has just been attacked or proven false. An example of this is when I told my mom I did not want to do the dishes because my legs hurt, and she told me I didn't have to move and I could still do them, then after that I told her my stomach hurt too much and she knew this was a lie.
Explain away the counter-evidence
Summary:
Philosophy of Science: Popper & Falsification
- Popper’s view: science is defined by falsification—actively seeking evidence that could prove a theory wrong
- Science requires:
- Seeking contradictory evidence, not just confirmation
- Taking risks with bold, testable predictions (e.g., Einstein’s eclipse test)
- Willingness to abandon theories when proven wrong
- Only claims that are falsifiable/testable count as scientific
- No theory is ever “proven true”—just “not yet proven false”
- Pseudoscience: seeks only confirmation, avoids risky/falsifiable claims, never admits being wrong (Freud, Marx as examples)
- Science vs. pseudoscience is about attitude and method, not just field—chemistry can be done scientifically or pseudoscientifically depending on approach
Application to Chemistry & Scientific Practice
- Can’t label entire fields as “science” or “pseudoscience”—depends on context and methods
- Example: two chemists, one ignores contradictory data (pseudoscience), one seeks to falsify their theory (science)
- Even within a field, individuals can shift between scientific and pseudoscientific approaches depending on the project
- Advice for students: research experience is valuable, but pay attention to scientific rigor in the labs you join
Q1. In your own words, explain the difference between a deductive inference and an inductive inference. Come up with your own concrete example as part of your explanation.
1. Hints
i. You need two concrete examples. One should be an example of a deductive inference, the other an example of an inductive inference.
ii. Don’t just give examples. You should USE your examples by talking about them and relating them to the rest of your explanation.
A deductive inference means that if any assumptions or premises are true, then the conclusion of a statement must be true. It is simply a formula that guarantees truth.
Example: All mammals are warm blooded > A dolphin is a mammal > Therefore, a dolphin has to be warm blooded (which it is) (this is backed up by deductive reasoning)
An Inductive inference moves from specific observations to a general conclusion, and the conclusion is probable, not certain. It's almost like making a prediction.
Example: Every time I have eaten at this restaurant, the food was good > Therefore my next order there will be good too.
Deduction = certainty if reasoning is valid.
Induction = probability; can still be wrong even with true premises.
Q2. In your own words, explain the difference between matters of fact and relations of ideas. Come up with your own concrete examples as part of your explanation.
Matters of fact are:
Based on an experience and observation of the world.
Could be true or false; the opposite is always possible.
Example: It is raining outside right now or my car starts when I turn the key.
You can’t know these just by thinking, you need collective evidence or observations by taking action in the future.
Relations of Ideas are:
Known through reasoning alone, independent of experience.
Have to be true, can’t be denied without any contradiction.
Example: 2 + 2 = 4 or all triangles have three sides.
We don’t need to observe the world to know this, it will always be true by definition.
Matters of fact = contingent truths that depend on how the world actually is. Experience/observation (empirical/a posteriori)
Relations of ideas = certain, logical truths. Reasoning alone (a priori) (something you know is true, usually just mathematical or definitionally true)
Q3. Try to figure out and explain how matters of fact and relations of ideas are related to deduction and induction. Coming up with your own concrete examples will be very helpful.
Matters of fact and induction are closely related:
Matters of fact depend on future observations that can create probable solutions
Every time I’ve watered this plant, it has grown. Therefore, if I water it tomorrow, it will grow again.
This is inductive because it’s possible the plant won’t grow, even if it usually does. Based on the past and future observations, you can get your best answer, even though it could be true or false
Relations of ideas and deduction are closely related:
Relations of ideas are things we know through logic/reasoning alone (like math or definitions).
They fit with deductive reasoning, since if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
All bachelors are unmarried. John is a bachelor. Therefore, he is unmarried. They are definitions that will never disappear, and nobody can create a good argument against it.
Q1. In your own words, explain what the “uniformity of nature” (UN) is according to Hume. Come up with your own concrete example to use in your explanation.
The uniformity of nature is the idea of the future resembling the past and that nature follows a consistent pattern.
Hume's view is that we use the uniformity of nature to make predictions, but it can never be proved logically until the time comes. Similar to Inductive inference.
You’ve always seen the sun rise every morning.
You expect it will rise tomorrow because of past experience.
his expectation relies on the uniformity of nature
Okasha - “Objects we have not examined will be similar, in relevant respects, to objects of the same sort we have examined.”
Q2. In your own words, explain why UN is presupposed by scientific reasoning. Come up with your own concrete examples to use in your explanation.
Scientists rely on patterns of life and any consistency in nature to make hypotheses, and they make their assumptions based on the idea of the UN.
Without the UN, past data would never be able to predict future outcomes.
Gravity makes objects fall now; we assume it will continue to do so tomorrow.
A glass of water will always find its way to become level.
Almost all (if not all) scientific claims are only justified if the UN is true.
Q3. In your own words, explain the problem of induction, according to Hume. Make sure to come up with your own concrete examples to use in your explanation.
The problem is we use past experiences to predict the future, which can be right in most cases, but can also be very wrong and misleading in other instances. This can be very costly for whatever you are doing. (Scientific reasoning is not justified, and your not justified to believe it either)
There is no logical guarantee that the future will always resemble the past. Induction relies on the assumption of the UN, which is never provable.
A basketball player makes 10 free throws in a row; we expect the 11th will also go in, but it might not.
Science needs the UN to be true in order to justify its claims
Which means that you need to be justified (or know) that the UN is true.
But Hume argues that you cannot know that the UN is true, you are not justified in believing the UN is true.
You can't know that the UN is true a priori. (As a relation of ideas)
From reason alone (definitions, math, rules of logic), can you prove that the UN is true? No.
Things you know a priori are necessarily true. But you know that the UN is contingently true, because you can imagine… (any concrete example)
But, you also can’t know that the UN is true a posteriori.
It becomes circular if you try to show that you know the UN is true a posteriori. (going around in circles with the same argument)
When you try to argue that something is true, you can’t assume that it’s true.
So, there is no way to know that UN is true.
Problem of Induction:
Hume’s goal with the problem of induction is to show you that scientific claims are unjustified (it is irrational for you to accept what science says its true)
Scientific claims are only justified if you know that UN is true
Do you know that UN is true? Hume says no, and that it’s actually impossible for you to know that it is true.
You can not know UN is true a priori
A priori truths are true necessarily
UN is not a necessary truth
You can easily imagine UN being false (example: you can imagine the structure of the universe goes away and there is no rules)
You can’t know that UN is true a posteriori (as a matter of fact)
Trying to show UN is true a posteriori ends up being circular (which is bad).
Circularity and why it’s bad
Example: God exists, so God exists. It can only prove its conclusion by assuming it's true. (circularity)
Example 2: The bible says that God exists. Everything the bible says is true. (Add on argument: the bible is the word of God, and God only speaks the truth, this is the problem) So, God exists. This is also circular, and the part in parenthesis assumes the conclusion is true.
Example: I have observed the pencil drop every time I let go of it.
So, the pencil will drop the next time I let go of it.
In order for this inductive inference to work, you have to assume nature is uniform.
Example: I’ve observed UN to be true up until now.
So, UN is true (will continue to be true)
In order for this inductive inference to work, you have to assume nature is uniform. But this is circular!
So, there is no way to know that UN is true.
Q1. Based on the readings, how would you define “correlation”? How would you define “causation”? Come up with your own concrete examples that illustrate the difference/definitions.
Correlation: when two variables occur together, but one does not necessarily cause the other (there may or may not be a dependent relationship, usually 2 independent variables)
Example: Ice cream sales and drowning incidents rise in summer. They correlate but ice cream doesn’t cause drowning.
Causation: One variable directly influences or produces an effect on another. (Independant, dependant variable)
A causes B means something like if A happens, B necessarily has to happen
Example: Smoking causes lung cancer; the act of smoking directly increases risk.
Q2. Suppose that attending class and getting good grades are correlated.
1. Clearly and thoroughly explain what it means for them to be correlated.
When occurring together, it usually means that attending class more correlates to better grades.
2. There are different ways that attending class and getting good grades may be causally
related. I can think of 3 different ways based on the readings. For each of the possible ways, explain what the causal relation is, but also come up with and explain a theory that can explain why they are causally related in that way.
i. Hints
1. The different ways are explained in the Okasha reading on page 27.
2. The video also covers the different causal relationships.
Class attendance turns into good grades as when attending you can actively participate, learn, and understand the material. Students getting exposure to materials and activities regarding what you are learning will boost performance in that class.
Good grades turn into good attendance as students who value their grades will be more motivated to attend class. They might prioritize attendance because they know it boosts performance, and vice versa.
Common Clause: motivation turns into good grades and attendance as this third factor influences both variables. Motivated students who are passionate about working and succeeding will attend class and study, which in turnout will be better grades.
C causes A (attending class) and B (getting good grades)
Strict parents force their kids to attend class and to do their homework, etc.
A causes B (attending class causes getting good grades)
Attending class results in learning the content better, which results in good grades.
B causes A (getting good grades causes increased attendance)
Getting good grades makes the student feel good about the class which makes them want to go to class.
Q3. In your own words, explain what controlled experiments are and why they are sometimes needed to infer a causal connection. Come up with your own concrete example as part of your explanation.
Controlled experiments are when all factors except the one being tested are held constant to see its effect. It's needed because these controls keep everything else the same so we can see if one specific factor actually causes an effect, instead of just being linked.
Example: To test whether extra studying improves grades, students are divided into two groups with the same prior GPA, same teacher, and same resources. Only one group gets the extra study time. Compare their grades afterward.
In a controlled experiment you “control” things by making sure that only one thing is changing. If changing only that one thing has an effect, then you infer that the change in the variable caused the effect.
Q4. In your own words, explain what randomization in controlled experiments is and why it is important for causal inference. Come up with your own concrete example as part of your explanation.
Randomly assigning people to groups in experiments to step them is important to make sure every possible factor in a person, place or thing is evenly distributed. It reduces bias and strengthens the finished claim that is observed in the end and if the effects are caused by the treatment/intervention.
There are variables that you can’t control for. So, you try to make sure those variables are equally represented between your control and experimental groups (by assigning subjects randomly).
These uncontrolled variables are not over represented in one group.
The effects of the uncontrolled variables are balanced between the two groups (or they can cancel each other).
Q1. In your own words, thoroughly and clearly explain why Hume thinks causal inference is not justified. Make sure to come up with your own concrete examples as part of your explanation.
Hume thinks that causal inference is not justified because we only ever observe two things happening together, not a “force” connecting them, even though they may be connected.
Seeing A, then B a lot does not prove that A must always cause B.
Example: After many matches light when struck, you expect fire — that expectation comes from habit, not from seeing any necessary connection
Q2. In your own words, thoroughly and clearly explain what Hume thinks is actually going on instead of causation. Make sure to come up with your own concrete examples as part of your explanation.
He thinks that there is consistent conjunction, where we notice patterns of things happening together and our human minds automatically form expectations.
The idea of a necessary connection is a mental prediction and the mind jumps from repeated pairing to a belief that A must produce B. (We just observe patterns)
You don't know that X causes Y
You don’t know that X causes Y a priori
You can easily imagine X failing to cause Y
You don’t know that X causes Y a posteriori
You never (and you can’t) observe literal causation.
Example: X= Fall season season starts Y= Leaves start to fall
Q3. In your own words, thoroughly and clearly explain what time-reversal symmetry is. Make sure to come up with your own concrete examples as part of your explanation.
Time-reversal symmetry means the basic physical laws work the same forward and backward in time.
Some events look very possible if played in reverse. (like billiards balls colliding)
Everyday stuff, like breaking a cup, will not probably look the same in reverse, but basic physics laws don’t forbid the reverse.
Q4. Try to explain why time-reversal symmetry might present a problem for the idea of causation. Make sure to come up with your own concrete examples as part of your explanation.
Physics laws can not tell us which is the cause and which is the effect, which is why time-reversal symmetry might present a problem for the idea of causation.
Time symmetry allows both directions to happen.
This makes causation look like something our minds add, not something built into the laws.