Philosophy 8
what are the features of a good scientific theory according to the later Kuhn?
accuracy, breadth, fruitfulness, consistency, simplicity
what is the main argument in favor of the view that our current scientific theories accurately describe the world, including the unobservable world?
"miracle argument" our best sciences are so incredibly successful at making accurate predictions, that it would be a virtual miracle if they are false. thus, they are probably true. It would be miraculous if with false theories we were able to predict outcomes and have all of the successes that they do, miracles don't exist
what is the main argument against that claim?
"pessimistic induction" the track record of past theories when it comes to being true is rather poor. they have all turned out to be false in the end. thus, it is likely that the theories we currently believe are false.
What are F's methodological rules?
"principle of tenacity" - hold on to theories even when they seem to have problems "principle of proliferation" - explore new ideas as much as possible, even ones that seem absurd
what different theses go by the name scientific realism?
1) our best scientific theories do or probably do accurately describe reality. thus it is reasonable for us to believe that what our best theories say are probably true. 2) the aim of science is to discover the structure of a mind-independent reality. as time goes one, science has gotten closer and closer to achieving this aim and continued progress can be expected.
What methodological principles does Lakatos give for working within a scientific research program?
1) within a research program, changes should only be made to the protective belt. changing hard core would shift from one scientific research program to another 2) changes to belt should be progressive. it should expand its domain of application to larger and larger areas, encompass more ideas
according to Lakatos, what does a scientific research program consist of ?
2 parts - hard core and protective belt strive to be rational
What different things might it mean to claim that observation is theory-ladden?
??
how does Longino argue that the virtues that she lists are cognitive virtues?
??
why might it lead one to think that one cannot have knowledge of the unobservable?
??
Why does F think that science is sometimes dogmatic even when it comes to observational claims?
Galileo - in arguing for the Copernican theory that the earth moves around the sun, he had to destroy the dogmatism that makes us think that it is contrary to our experience that the earth moves. if participants of various scientific debates had adhered to certain philosophies of science, they would have done the wrong thing. (Empiricists would have thought that C view was refuted by experience). Observational claims can lead us to wrong conclusions, can't 100% depend on observations as they can mislead us Often science has to get over certain obstacles
what sorts of metaphors does Kuhn use to describe the shift that happens in a scientific revolution?
Gestalt shift and conversion experience and mob psychology
what is the main criticism of that view of explanation?
The primary criticism of such an account of explanation is that it apparently cannot capture the asymmetry of explanation. The most famous example of this failure arises in the case of the flag-pole and the shadow. Though I can predict the height of the flagpole from the length of the shadow, it does not seem to explain it.
what is van Frassen's argument for the claim that it is not even the aim of science to describe the unobservable world?
VF - aim of science is to give empirically adequate theories. not part of the aim of science to describe the unobservable world. it is rational for us to accept our best scientific theories (its rational for us to think that they are empirically adequate) but it is not rational for us to believe them since they refer to unobservable entities like electrons
what is it for something to be a cognitive virtue?
a virtue that leads theory closer to the truth
what is the covering-law model of explanation? what are the four features that is requires of an explanation?
an explanation is like a sort of prediction in the sense that an explanation shows why the phenomenon in question was to be expected. 1) an explanation is a type of argument with the explanans as the premise and the explanandum as the conclusion 2) the explanans must contain at least one general law of nature, and the law of nature must be required in the argument in the sense that the explanandum would not follow without it 3) the explanans must be true 4) the explanans must have empirical content
What is the protective belt of the program?
auxiliary hypotheses which are used to apply the hard core to particular cases. they serve to protect the hard core info from falsification
why does it seem reasonable to think that belief comes in degrees?
because we know that belief is not simple, it is very complex and it seems more intuitive to say that we belief in something to a certain degree. If something happens 50% of the time, it would be hard to either fully accept or decline it
How does Laudan's theory of "scientific research traditions" differ from Lakatos' theory?
can change hard core and still remain in the same research program/tradition. programs can use/engulf parts of other programs to support their own
What problems does F's position face?
contradiction: he says there are no rules and then gives us rules. also, gives us no rule for the rejection of a scientific theory. • Problems - he doesn't seem to distinguish between art and science o Social role of science the same of social role of art o Contradictory, if we accept both rules then we don't know when to accept versus reject theories
what is an example of an explanation that proceeds via a claim that is arguably false?
demand goes up, prices go up. but supply could also be the reason. also, chalk dropping example. hard to find universal truths
what is the thesis of "incommensurability"?
different paradigms are incommensurable because they are not comparable by any neutral standard. Paradigms include their own standards of evaluation so a person working in the paradigm will be able to say why his or her view is superior, but this will not seem compelling to someone in a different paradigm that has different standards.
what features does Longino list as belonging to a good scientific theory?
empirical adequacy, applicability to human needs, diffusion of power, novelty, ontological heterogeneity, complexity of interaction
what is the explanans of an explanation? what is the explanandum?
explanans = the facts that do the explaining explanandum = what needs to be explained
what is the underdetermination of theory by evidence as stated by Hesse?
for any theory T, which is acceptable on the basis of some body of evidence E, there is at least one other incompatible and acceptable theory T' which is empirically equivalent to T
what makes one think that Kuhn might be a relativist?
he claims that people within different paradigms believe different things. If world believes that phlogiston is true then it is and vice versa. if there is no objective truth then there is no way for you to get the answer wrong.
how is Bayes' theorem used in a theory of confirmation?
o What B is saying is that if we find a hypothesis to be true, then our degree to which we believe it should go up. If it is false, then it should go down. see example on second page of handout
Why does Kuhn think that scientists working in different paradigms have a hard time communicating with each other?
people in different paradigms are not fully able to communicate with each other since they use key terms in different ways or they use completely different terms. EX: Newton and Einstein's use of the word 'mass'. Make different claims about the mass of an atom, but it is not easy to see whether this is a substantive difference or if they just use the same word in two different ways.
Why does Lakatos' account never tell us that a certain research program should be definitively abandoned?
programs could make a comeback, they might work out. set backs might only be temporary
When is a research program progressive and when is it degenerate?
progressive = when it applies to more fields degenerate = retreating from original claims, not successfully being extended
What is they distinction that Laudan raises between pursuing a research tradition and accepting it?
pursue = working on developing accept = believing its true
what is the hard core of the program?
represents the essence of research program, things you can't give up and still be within a certain program
what are the axioms of probability?
see handout
what is Bayes' theorem?
see handout
what is Hacking's grid argument? the argument which is supposed to show that there is nothing particularly problematic with thinking that what microscopes show us is veridical
shrink a grid and look at it in microscope to see if it is the same, no miracles argument validates the grid
how does Longino argue that some of the virtues that appear on Kuhn's list can be taken to be pragmatic virtues?
some of the virtues conflict, but both merely practical, just on the other side
What research tradition does he think that scientists would be rational to accept?
the research tradition that has the "highest level of problem solving power"
What research tradition does he think that scientists would be rational to pursue?
the research tradition that has the highest rate of progress when it comes to problem solving
what is relativism?
the truth depends on your point of view or your beliefs.
What is Feyerabend's "epistemological anarchist" view?
there are no rules of rational inquiry in science. such rules would only be constraints on creativity, and science requires creativity. science is an activity where human creativity is fundamental, creativity is central
What is common sense realism?
there is a mind-independent reality, it does not depend upon what people believe about it. if all creatures with minds were to disappear, everything would go
What does Godfrey-Smith think that both Laudan and Lakatos ignore when it comes to deciding upon which research tradition to work on?
they both ignore the fact that the decision of which research program/tradition to work on might depend upon how many people are currently working within that program. Laudan especially points towards everyone working in the same tradition.
why do such metaphors make it seem as if the shift from one paradigm to another is not a matter of having found evidence that the new paradigm is true?
this way of speaking leads many to think that for Kuhn the shift from one paradigm to another is an irrational process. in a gestalt shift, one's perception of a drawing jumps to another point of view. When you start to see these things in a new way, it is not because reason kicked in. It is just a shift in your brain, not a rational process. Unable to interpret the drawings both ways at the same time, once shifted you often can't see the old way anymore. we believe in things simply because the community believes them to be true.
what is it for something to be a practical virtue?
virtue that leads theory closer to our practical needs
what makes van Fraassen think that there is something more problematic about trusting what microscopes seem to be showing us than what telescopes seem to be showing us?
you can't check to see if what you see in microscope is really there, you can state theories as to why microscope just magnifies what is really there but we can never verify.
how does Cartwright think that explanation works if it does not involve stating true generalizations?
you find causal factors, but you can give explanation with a causal factor working by itself
what is a ceteris paribus claim?
• Ceterus paribus claim = all things being equal o In physics, there are no exceptionless laws, therefore there are no official laws of nature. o All things being equal, Snell's law is true o You can add this on to anything to make it true
why does Cartwright think that the explanans of an explanation does not need to be true?
• Explanans doesn't need to be true because o i.e. she planted a flower in her garden and knows it requires rich soil but it is hot which could kill the flower but she adds it anyway. So her explanation o Plant dying because of hot manure is a valid explanation even though it isn't necessarily true and there might be several other valid explanations. So explanans doesn't have to be true
Why would it be a problem if observation were theory-laden in the various sense?
• Problem - because if an observation is always theory-ladden, then we cannot use it as a standard to evaluate other theories o Problematic for science to determine which standard to use o One is not a valid problem, two it can be - people will claim to see different things but they will come to an agreement, three our O is laden to the point where we can't make any neutral standard to work with • If even the most basic function of our vocab is theory-laden, then people can claim that observations won't work
What is a problem with Bayesian theory of confirmation?
• Problem - we can ascribe any degree of prior belief, which results in discrepancy. This seems to be a too subjective matter for science, this makes science too subjective o Resolves - if we have an infinite number of experiments, they will converge at some point
what is one of the successes of Bayesian theory of confirmation?
• Success - it resolves Quine's puzzle in that one can uphold a particular hypothesis to be true despite observations. The lowest percentage H after experimentation is where the problem most likely lies