Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
36 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Quine
|
Holism, Pragmatism, and Instrumentalism Holism
|
|
|
Holist
|
argues that you cannot understand a particular thing without looking at its place in a larger whole
|
|
|
Pragmatisim
|
A family of unorthodox empiricist philosophical views that emphasize the relation between thought and action. C.S. Peirce, William James, John Dewey
|
|
|
Instrumentalisim
|
View that scientific theories should be seen as instruments used to predict observations, rather than as attempts to describe the real but hidden structures in the world that are responsible for the patterns found in observations
|
|
|
Hume
|
inductive skeptic : belief that using the past to predict future is not supported
|
|
|
Popper
|
thought Scientific theory can never be supported by observational evidence not even a little bit, regardless of the number of test it passes
|
|
|
Falsification
|
a hypothesis is scientific if and only if it has the potential to be refuted by some possible observation and Confirmation is a myth. Popper. we cannot increase our confidence in the truth of a theory when it passes observational tests. Logical empiricists and most others thought it could
|
|
|
Corroboration
|
Popper used term for something that a scientific theory acquires after it survives attempts to refute it (NOT another name for confirmation)
|
|
|
Paradigm Shift
|
Kuhn - Broad - a paradigm as a whole “way of doing science” that has grown up around a paradigm in the narrow sense; Narrow - a paradigm is an impressive achievement that inspires and guides a tradition of further scientific work – a tradition of normal sense
|
|
|
Confirmation
|
We are looking for a non-trivial (informative) support relation
|
|
|
Fallibility
|
based on amount evidence to believe something but regardless of amount of information doesn’t prove anything
|
|
|
Deductivism
|
A hypothesis is confirmed when any of its observable consequences are found to be true.
Hypothesis: All Fs are Gs Individual A is an F ________________ Individual A is a G (observable consequence) Observable consequence adds confirmation to hypothesis |
|
|
Aristotle and Ptolemy
|
If Earth is in motion, then an object dropped from a tower will not land at the foot.
Galileo rejects this General, widely accepted principle The stone lands at the foot regardless!! |
|
|
Geocentrisim
|
earth is center with evertything around it
|
|
|
Heliocentric
|
sun is at the center of everything
|
|
|
Analytic/Synthetic Distinction
|
Analytic claims are true in virtue of their meaning
Synthetic claims are true or false in virtue of their meaning and the way the world is |
|
|
Hypothetico-Deductivisim
|
A hypothesis is confirmed when any of it observable consequences found to be true.
|
|
|
The Ravens Problem
|
If an observation confirms H, then it confirms anything logically equivalent to H
‘ All ravens are black’ is logically equivalent to ‘All non-black things are non-ravens’ This white shoe (a non-black non-raven) confirms (according to hypothetico-deductivism) the hypothesis that All non-black things are non-ravens. But then the white shoe confirms that All ravens are black But who would think that a white shoe could count as evidence for the hypothesis that all ravens are black? In other words, this is at leas a counter intuitive result of Hempel’s account of confirmation “All Fs are Gs” is logically equivalent to “All non-Gs are non-Fs” |
|
|
I.J. Good’s point
|
Maybe observations may or may not confirm a hypothesis, depending on other factors.
Suppose you know that either (H1) all ravens are black and ravens are extremely rare or (H2) most ravens are black, a few are white, and ravens are common. |
|
|
Two Dogmas of Empiricism
|
There is an analytic/Synthetic distinction, are we discover empirically.
Quine: Attempts to establish this fail. They are circular or problematic in other ways Reductionism: that statements about the world “reduce to observation” Quine: rejects this too, largely because of his holism |
|
|
The Barometer Example
|
H: High air pressure leads to stable weather
P: Measurements of higher air pressure are usually followed by stable weather If H then P Not P._____ ← based on observation Not H But maybe your barometer doesn’t reliably measure air pressure. Or maybe your records are somehow faulty. This could lead to the first or second being untrue You do know that the following three propositions cannot all be true at once {If H then P, Not P, H} this is called an inconsistent triad- means not all of these can be true at once We have to accept at least one is false in order to make it true and the other one will follow |
|
|
The Flat Earth Example
|
Predicted observation: Picture of sail boat with the whole boat seen from a distance
Actually observe: from a distance only observe the sail from the sail boat Argument against Flat Earth Hypothesis If Earth is flat, then boats will fade from view uniformly. They don’t______ ← Not P Earth is not flat ← Not H Rawbotham (Paralax- nickname) rejects this He argues that its not the case that if Earth is flat then boat will fade from view uniformly. He argues the first argument that supports the Round Earth Argument is an assumption and that our sight does not work that way Flat Earth Round Earth H: Earth is flat P: boats will fade uniformly from view Inconsistent Triad for the Flat Earth dispute {Earth is flat, If Earth is flat, then boats fade from view uniformly, boats don’t fad from view uniformly} Quine’s “Corporate Body” metaphor Theory to make good predictions |
|
|
The Problem of Demarcation
|
What distinguishes science from non-science?
One Answer: the inductive method, confirmation Hypothetico-Deductivism -- Logical Positivists, Empiricists Poppers’ response: Confirmation was everywhere PGS: Confirmation of scientific theories is a myth If H then P P__________ ← this is a logical fallacy. But for Popper, we cant H even say it has inductive strength H1—> P H2 → P H3 → P |
|
|
Albert Einstein’s Conjecture
|
In 1915, E publish his GTR
STR is based on 2 postulates The laws of physics are invariant with respect to frame of reference Speed of light is constant STR was special- it does not address gravity GTR was intended to unite STR with Newton’s law of universal gravitation GTR like STR was considered philosophically compelling because it unified separate theories and observations in a simple elegant way Many ppl though GTR (time is relative) was a wild idea on par with Marxism and Freudianism But the distinction, as Karl Popper sees it, is that GTR is falsifiable, for GTR predicted that the path of light would be measurably curved by massive objects Another way of looking at it: GTR was informative in the sense that it ruled out many possible observations saying in effect that we will never observe certain things x,y,z GTR is thus a bold conjecture since if we ever do observe x, y, or z then we can refute it As Godferey-Smith and other have put it, GTR sticks its neck out GTR is precise. |
|
|
Scientific Change
|
Stage 1: Conjecture
Offer some hypothesis H that might describe and explain something in the world Stage 2: Attempted Refutation Subject H to critical testing in an attempt to show that its false. Once H is refuted go back to stage 1. H→ P P_____ fallacy H H→ P Not P____ Not H |
|
|
Confirmation Bias
|
the tendency to fixate on and emphasize data that confirms your prior beliefs while ignoring or dismissing counter-evidence.
|
|
|
Popper's response to Einstein's conjecture
|
GTR passes the test
Does this mean GTR was confirmed? Not to popper Indeed, any theory which predicted the stars would appear just where were was falsified But this does not mean GTR survived an attempted refutation |
|
|
Eddington’s Test
|
GTR predicts that light paths or the space thru which light propogates are curved by massive objects
In those days we had no easy way to test this Sun is large enough to measurably curve light from distant stars However, the sun is also very bright. We cannot normally see or otherwise detect stars in daylight GTR is falsifiable because it predicts that during an eclipse the paths of starlight which pass near the Sun will be detectably curved Thus it will appear to us that the stars are in different locations If this does not occur, GTR is refuted! Picture: of sun and the location of star and where the star appears to be Was GTR confirmed? Not to Popper Indeed any theory which predicted the stars would appear just where they were was falsified. But this doesn’t mean we have confirmed GTR GTR has survived an attempted refutation Its distinction lies in its being falsifiable, having been critically |
|
|
Popper on Marxism
|
Industrialized capitalist societies will experience a revolution and become socialist states…unless they institute welfare. ← Popper claims that this is an ad hoc revision.
To avoid an ad hoc revision you must find a conjecture which involves more risk, more ways of being falsified, not the same or fewer. Popper believe in God but the information doesn’t impact their life so thus making it a conjecture |
|
|
Objections to Popper’s Falsificationism
|
All pieces of iron expand when heated
Falsifier: Some piece of iron ford not expand when heated Challenge to Popper: How do we know its really iron? How do we know it’s not expanding? How do we know it’s heated? Its not clear ( or Popper’s view) what counts as a falsifier Probability statements (nontrivial ones, not 0 or 1) strictly aren’t falsifiable. |
|
|
Objections to Popper on Confirmation
|
Popper’s Bridge
Two theories T1 and T2, with differing implications for how to build a bridge T1 has been tested many times, never falsified T2 has never been tested Which theory do we use? Could Popper say T2 would be irrational? He would not; which looks really bad Corroboration: the more times a theory survives attempted falsification, the more corroborated it is. He would say that neither one has been proven If something has been tested and tested without being falsified is to say something is more corroborated But wait isn’t this just a new name for confirmation? To say one decision is rational is not to say the other is irrational Popper didn’t feel that past theories and their performance of the world were not reliable to predict the future |
|
|
Hypotheses-Deductive Method
|
Conjecture: come up with a hypothesis (or a form)
Deduce observable prediction entailed by the hypothesis Test to see if the predictions are true or not If they are true, the theory is supported If they are false, the theory should be rejected |
|
|
Phlogiston
|
a substance which resides in combustible things- its is given during combustion
Like paper has phlogiston when it burns Nobody holds anymore Charcoal is made of earth, water, lots of phlogiston Maybe phlogiston is lighter than air, making things buoyant Maybe phlogiston has negative weight |
|
|
Lavoisier
|
Maybe something goes into it instead
Paradigms determine our data! |
|
|
Anomaly
|
a puzzle that has resisted solution
Too many anomalies or one big anomaly→ crisis |
|
|
Two ways in which Paradigms are incommensurable
|
Communication: Paradigms come along with them own conceptual language.
(Holism) Standards of Evidence and Argument: Paradigm bring their own standards of Ev and Arg. Should scientific theories be required to give us underlying mechanisms? |
