Philosophy Of Science Exam 1

Front 1

What is Philosophy's relationship to other disciplines?

Back 1

It is the science of science.
The Meta-Science.
Analyzes the universals which other disciplines use to understand their respected study.

Front 2

What is Deduction, and give and example?

Back 2

If the premises are true then the conclusion logically follows.

All A are B
All B are C
Therefore All A are C

A therefore B
B therefore C
A therefore C

A or not A
not A
therefore A

Front 3

What is induction?

Back 3

If the premises are true, the the conclusion will likely be correct.

Front 4

What are the two types of inductive inference?

Back 4

Inference to Enumeration
Inference to the best Explination

Front 5

What does AD HOC mean?

Back 5

It only pertains to a specific cycles or events. Not for wider consideration.

Front 6

What would a strict Empiricist say about our understanding of science?

Back 6

Science is to simply model data

Front 7

What is an instrumentalist view of Science?

Back 7

Science will never get to truth, only that science is an instrument. Pragmatic.

Front 8

What is a Realist/Rationalist view of Science?

Back 8

The benchmark, or what we should go by, is markings of truth.

Front 9

Consistent theory

Back 9

one that doesn't contain a contradiction

Front 10

Mutatis Mutandis

Back 10

Provided the necessary changes are made.

We can differentiate language from non language and mutatis mutandis we can differentiate ethical from non-ethical.

Front 11

What is a proposition?

What is a true proposition?

Back 11

Proposition: Set of Properties

True Proposition: All members have been instantiated.

Front 12

Explain the meaning of instantiation/ saturation

Back 12

L-A Bob is Bfat=
SET C = 1Bob, 2Fatness, 3Relationship of someone to fatness, 4relationship of Bob to fatness.

Saturates: L is for A to saturate B, then L is identical with a set that contains 1, 2,3,4

Front 13

Why isn't the statment: the relationship of tommy to fatness

the same as: tommy, fatness, the relationship of tommy to fatness

Back 13

within relationship of tommy to fatness

there are no discrete labelers. No simpliciter.

Front 14

Bona Fide

Back 14

Good Faith, Sincerely

Front 15

How is JMK's view of Knowledge diff than classical view

Back 15

Not Justified true belief, but correctly justified

Front 16

Inter alia

Back 16

Among other things

Knowledge as Inter alia, justified, true, belief

Front 17

Empiricism

Back 17

All knowledge is sensory perceived

Front 18

Rationalism

Back 18

At least some knowledge we can aquire through intellect

Front 19

Sine Qua Non

Back 19

Without which there is nothing
An absolutely indispensable

It is a sine qua non that i trust my gf if i want the relationship to work out

Front 20

Problem with empiricism: can we observe what is not the case?

Back 20

No

Try to draw a picture of what is not

Front 21

What is a synonym of Platonism?

Back 21

Rationalism

Front 22

Who are some Empiricists?

Back 22

Locke, Berkeley, Hume

Modern: JS Mill, Carnap, Quine

Front 23

Who are some Rationalists:

Back 23

Augustine, Descartes, Leibniz, Frege

Front 24

Universals relationship to the world/Empiricism

Back 24

we cant see universals, these general ideas. But we use them to understand things

Front 25

De Rigueur

Back 25

Strictly required

Front 26

What is wrong with this statement:

Non-empirical is metaphysical mumbo-jumbo

Back 26

Just because some non-empirical, doesn't mean all of it is

Front 27

What is wrong with this statement:

nothing is outside of space-time

Back 27

for two things to be similar, is for two instances of a property 2 squares. Going in the same direction.

If squareness were spatio-temporal, we could bombard the space and change what it means to be a square

Front 28

What is wrong with this statement:

Categories are man made.

Back 28

Pint of Water is not the same as a pint of Oil.

Francis Bacon - "categories cut nature at the joint"

Front 29

Is knowledge elicited or deposited?

Back 29

Elicited - Drawn out
Deposited - There

Knowledge is drawn out from the perception. We can see A. But to know A is B we have to draw out from the observance of A.

Front 30

Reasons non perceptual knowlegde is a prerequisite for perceptual knowlegde

Back 30

we learn through perception except perception.

sense perception is based on imperceptible concepts.

Front 31

Ratiocinative

Back 31

exact thinking, skilled methodological

Front 32

Explain

information is triggered, but the conception is not soley transmitted by the observation

Back 32

You see A (triggering), but to know A (transmitting), some understanding of universals must be present.

Front 33

Explain why these two statements are false.

1. arithmetic truths are within the objects (observation/experience mills)

2. 1+1=2 is typographical. definitional. (Carnap)

Back 33

1. Some is from experience, but most is not 9999121+2323223

1. You have 1 apple then you dont. You dont reconsider the meaning of 1.

2. Consistency relations is not a matter of convention.

2. Logic may be convention in terms, but part of it is without convention.

2.snow is white / is not/ snow is black

2. conventional statemtents - simple statements have no logical meaning

white being a designator for what white actually is - just like blanca

Front 34

What is the difference between analytic and synthetic truth?

Back 34

Analytic - Conceptual
Empirical - Synthetic

Front 35

Which comes first - sense perception or knowlegde

Back 35

Sense perception pre supposes knowledge

Front 36

What is inference?

Back 36

JMK says it is knowledge of intersituational dependencies

Hume denies inference= knowledge

Front 37

Which view is also an iconic representaion?

Back 37

Empiricism

Front 38

Problems with iconic representaion

Back 38

Meta propositions.

Bees cause ___ ___ can not be iconified

possibly, necessary cannot be iconified

Front 39

What is problem with this:

We can't have general thoughts

Back 39

you cant take a non-general to be a general because you still grasp the general

Front 40

Berkeley on disproving universals. (why he was wrong)

Back 40

he says - you cannot have an idea of just a man - which is true and actually proves universals because

-just the reason why knowledge is not mental imagery.

Front 41

Analytic truth(definitional Truth):

Formally vs Informal

Back 41

Formal - true in virtue of the syntactic structure

P or not P

Informal - not true in virtue of its structure

X is greater than 5

Front 42

Sentence Schema

Back 42

Open sentence

x Rs y and y Rs x

x Touches y and y Touches x <-interpretation

Front 43

What is an example of an informal analytic truth.

Back 43

Triangles are not Circles.

Three is bigger than 1.

Nothing can be its own immediate antecedent.

F- nothing can be its own self

Front 44

What are examples of a quantifyer?

Back 44

Most, None, All, Some, a few

Front 45

Ceteris Paribus

Back 45

All other things being equal

Scientific laws have this form

(in a battle of wits, ceteris paribus, the wittier one wins)

Front 46

What does the term Veridical mean?

Back 46

regards to sense perceptions: accurate honest, not hallucination

Antonym: Falsidical

Front 47

(T or F) sentences are representational to convention, and not inherently representational

Back 47

T

Front 48

What is a Digital Structure

Back 48

composing something into smaller parts, (real parts) (a sentence or binary)

Front 49

What is an analogue structure?

Back 49

one that cannot be composed into minimal parts - real life sense perception

Front 50

What is a requirement of a good language?

Back 50

It must be expressively powerful, you can say a lot in them

Front 51

What is a morpheme

Back 51

simple expression that doesn't consist of other expressions

pig, cow, hit, run

Front 52

Is the phrase 1. Cats a morpheme?

Back 52

No. Cats is a complex expression
(s) itself is a morpheme as (cat) is

Front 53

What is humes major problem of induction?

Back 53

induction (all B have C before, so this B has C)

we need to assume uniformity principle - asuming things have been representative of how they will continue to be . so this P is like past P

- uniformity principle uses induction to validify to itslef - no justification

Front 54

Are specific facts the same as causal relations?

Back 54

No,

specific facts (bob is here) is different than, (natural law) bob walked to this spot, (nomic (having to do with natural laws)

Front 55

How can we know about some of the future?

Back 55

1) knowledge of present
2_ general knowledge of causal laws that link present with future

Front 56

How can we know about the past?

Back 56

1) direct memory
2) indirect (inverted future knowledge)
a. we know now.
b. we know that glass on the floor means in the past that glass broke

Front 57

What are counter factuals?

Back 57

weird ways of phrasing causal relations, or logical or causal dependence

Front 58

What is theoretical knowledge?

What is observational?

Back 58

Theoretical - no direct experience only theory

observational - direct experience

Front 59

Is all theoretical inferential?

Back 59

all theoretical is inferential but not vice versa

you see broken glass therefore you know relatively whole piece of glass broke - non theoretical but inferential

i know you are mad, so i know its how you feel about your girlfriend (theoretical and inferential)

Front 60

Why do some people say all knowledge is inferential?

Back 60

Particles (not the same) as your perception of them

similarly

sub atomic particles (not like) our theories of them

Front 61

Define:
1) A priori
2) A posteriori

Back 61

1) sense perception, pre exists any knowlegde

2) acquired through a priori

Front 62

Who believed and who denied a priori knowlegde?

Back 62

Believed: Plato, Leibniz, Kant, Chomsky

Deny: Aristotle, Locke, Quine

Front 63

"When we see something far away, we see a small stop sign, so we know the stop sign is far away, therefore we know that something is also far away"

this is a reason for

Back 63

why perceptual knowledge is also theoretical/ inferential

Front 64

Which is first, inference of theoretical knowledge?

Back 64

inference is pre-theoretical

Front 65

What are limitations of inference?

Back 65

Not all inference is truth conductive

To be knowledge, inference must be made on correct inference rule

Front 66

What is a theory?

Back 66

systems of statements standing in various dependence relations

Front 67

What is a defeasable inference?

Back 67

1) he crashed because he was drunk

it may be false, but it sounds reasonable

defeasable (not the same) as a bad inference

Front 68

What is justification and discovery?

Back 68

Justification - abstract statements

Discovery - logical thought process (contains predicative justification) onto the process of solidifying justification

Front 69

What should we say to the notion newton getting hit on the head is not discovery but luck

Back 69

we should differentiate discovery pre-process from the intricate logical afterthought

Front 70

Why is it hard to transmit ones justification to another?

Back 70

experience P, which may be the reason for my discovery, may be rare and hard to convince people of

Front 71

How can you be justified without really knowing it?

Back 71

you have can have intuitions as a result of logical assesment.

intuitions before the belief is justified
those intuitions would be correct and justified

Front 72

How can you know but not explain it?

Back 72

you can read off subtle cues but not explain them (interogator)

you can just be shy

Front 73

If you are rightly justified can you always transmit the information to others, even if they understand, to get their personal justification?

Back 73

no, sometimes people know what you mean they just havent made the justification

(epistemologically justified)

Front 74

What does justified usually mean in the philosophy of science?

Back 74

people in general are justified

Front 75

Which few could be classified as normative (what should be the case)

Back 75

Logic

Front 76

What is a lexical item?

Back 76

picks something out, red shauns, hit

Front 77

What is a predicate?

Back 77

One place relation

Front 78

What is the difference between Disjuction and disjunct?

Back 78

Disjuction P or Q

Disjuct P and Q

Front 79

What is foundationalism?

Back 79

All knowledge begins with something

Front 80

How does an empiricist feel about modal truths?

Back 80

they don't like them

Front 81

What is grue?

Back 81

Nelson goodmans way of disproving inductive reasoning.

Before tomorrow green, after tomorrow blue

Front 82

What is hempels paradox aka the raven paradox?

Back 82

all ravens are black
if its a raven then its black
its not black its not a raven

we would look for different things when proving the claims

Logical equivalence SHOULD be consistent with confirmational equivalence

Front 83

Why does JMK approve of causality against this

We observe causality but we dont observe the compelling

Back 83

we dont observe the electrons but we have good reason

Front 84

what does it mean for something to be in space time

Back 84

for it to have causal properties

Front 85

Do objects or events cause things

Back 85

events

Front 86

What is an event?

Back 86

change in condition/ change in the manner of change

Front 87

What is a condition?

Back 87

relatively consistent changes.

Front 88

What is universals relationship to the spaciotemporal cause

Back 88

they universal is precause

Front 89

What is an INUS statement?

Back 89

Insufficient yet nonredundant part of an unnessary but sufficient condition

Front 90

IS bob being drunk a sufficient cause?

Back 90

No, bob, being drunk, inter alia (certain wheel type, slippery roads) made him crash

Front 91

Is bob being drunk always a necessary for the crash?

Back 91

it was necessary given the certain circumstances.

but drunkenness is NOT a necessary condition for crash

Front 92

Summary of aristotle on Causality

Back 92

JMK HATES ARISTOTLE

1. (Good) the efficient cause
2. Final cause (goals) too abstract
3. dependence relations - propositions not objects.

Bob cuz of Joe = X

Front 93

What is functionalism?

Back 93

only the cause and effect determine the experience and the brain. the function.

functionalism cant account for phenomenal content (feelings)

Front 94

Are judgements, attidudes, dispositions phenomenal?

Back 94

no but they give rise to feelings

Front 95

Content Externalism

Back 95

says the mental state is exactly the same as the cause to a certain mental disposition. (FALSE)

Front 96

What is program causality?

Back 96

This to that - EFFICIENT ISN'T EVER!

Front 97

If a statement, given only what it says, coudln't be true, then it is a

Back 97

analytic truth

Front 98

Why is the notion (in a possible world) to explain counter factuals wrong

Back 98

the possible world be way different

it contains a hidden counter-factual like statement

we know the possible world scenario because of our knowledge of dependence relations - which is exactly why we know of counterfactuals