short answer qs
Causal explanations of correlations are: Type token experiences Type type explanations Token token explanations
Type type explanations
Define the position of verificationism? Convincing? If so, what's strongest objection to it
Verificationism - is that something has meaning if it can be (in principle) verified with reference to empirical evidence. Verificationism is not convincing due to the objection of maths, and the vagueness in relation to defining what 'verifiable in principle' actually means. Something is meaningful if it is able to be verified empirically (either in principle or in practice). Maths is the strongest objection to empiricism due to the fact it us a-priori and therefore cannot be verified, despite it being universally accepted as true.
Secondly, which if any of these models values has the most importance in model choice? Why or why not and how would one go about deciding if so?
...
What is one limitation of IBE?
A limitation of IBE is that it does not allow for the fact that the most favourable conclusion may not be the correct one.
What is a posteriori knowledge? 3 examples
A posteriori knowledge is knowledge gained through observation or experience of the world. Examples of a posteriori knowledge include, swans are white, chilis are hot, and it is raining outside.
What is a priori knowledge? 3 examples
A priori knowledge is innate knowledge that is true independent of experience. Examples of such knowledge are that all triangles have three sides, bachelors are unmarried men, and 2+2=4.
List and provide a short description of Kuhn's 5 traditional scientific values used as criteria for theory choice.
Accuracy (empirical adequacy) Consistency (Internal - with itself, i.e. does not contain a contradiction External - does not contradict other accepted theories) Breadth - applies widely Simplicity Fruitfulness - generates new research.
What is the analytic/synthetic distinction? Can this distinction be used to satisfactorily respond to the challenge that maths poses to verificationism?
Analytic - true by definition - all bachelors are unmarried Synthetic - true in virtue of experience (requires observation)- e.g. all bachelors are unhappy Yes - a response is that maths is analytic therefore true by definition and does not need to be verified.
List and provide a short description of Longino's 5 feminist scientific values used as criteria for theory choice.
Applies feminist epistemology to philosophy of science. Proponent of scientific pluralism - scientific explanations of the same phenomenon may be partial and mutually inconsistent Novelty: Difference from existing theories may itself be a virtue Contrasts with consistency Ontological heterogeneity: Contrasts with ontological simplicity, Good to take into account differences Complexity of interaction: Multi-directional vs unidirectional Contrasts with simplicity but also breadth Empirical adequacy: Choice of which data to match political Pragmatic virtues, Applicability to human needs Diffusion of decentralization of power: science could be used to empower people.
Describe distinction between the context of discovery and the context of justification. According to LE which context does the project of philosophy of science belong to?
Context of discovery - daily scientific practice - historical development of scientific theories. Context of justification - logical analysis of scientific method - what the LE were interested in - POS belongs to this.
Bacon's 'True Induction'
Bacon's induction is meant to be more than mere enumerative induction By organising data in order to draw out positive and negative correlations -Bacon hoped to avoid circumstantial bias and thus also the danger of jumping too quickly to a false universalisation
Can the choice of scientific values every be purely epistemic? Support your answer!
Choice cannot be purely epistemic because although there is a matter of judgement in what we discuss in public and where norms come in. Overall, decisions are not epistemic because research and funding for example is based on other social/ political contexts. This is still a matter of judgement because we have to make explicit and discuss in public where these other norms come in.If research is limited to Kuhn values then it would be hard to explain why your research is needed/ important to marginalised groups.
Empirical Adequacy
Context stripping: is data acquired in artificial conditions (laboratories/controlled studies) representative of true complexity? Which data is relevant? If only data for certain kinds of studies/experiments is accepted does this prejudice or bias the criterion of empirical adequacy? Empirical adequacy needs further interpretation to be meaningfully applied in the context of theory choice Once you start to interpret you realise the interpretations are not purely cognitive or epistemic
Describe the continuum worry that CE runs up against? Do you think van Fraassen's manner of responding to this worry is satisfactory? Be prepared to defend your answer.
Continuum problem Observable is a vague predicate This means there are cases where it is unclear whether it applies or not Famous problem for vague predicates - the Sorites paradox 1 grain of sand is not a heap - if X is not a heap of sand adding a grain of sand wont make x a heap but if you keep adding grains eventually you will have a heap - where is the boundary between a handful of grains and a heap. Van Franssen solution Bites the bullet - doesn't care if the line is arbitrary Vague predicates aren't a problem so long as there are clear cases on either end Given these clear cases for observability there's no problem with setting the precise line arbitrarily
What is corroboration and what is its place in scientific method according to Popper?
Corrobertation: evidence which confirms or supports a statement, theory, or finding; confirmation. Popper explicitly rejects the idea that corroboration is intended as an analogue to the subjective probability or logical probability that a theory is true, given the available evidence. It is easy, he argues, to obtain evidence in favour of virtually any theory, and he consequently holds that such 'corroboration', as he terms it, should count scientifically only if it is the positive result of a genuinely 'risky' prediction
Machamer, Darden, Craver suggest that where mechanistic explanations bottom out depends upon kind of explanation on is attempting to provide. Defensible?
Craver: just what we find explanatory (why do we find it explanatory - due to our cognitive set up) Unsatisfying: we want to have the right sort of explanations, not just anthropocentric ones Recall epistemic vs pragmatic views of explanation But general problem: any explanation has to accept brute facts Brute facts: facts that are not themselves further explained
What is the structure of deductive-nomological explanation
DNE the explanandum needs to be verifiable according to a universal law and the event must have already occurred. Explain an event by showing it follows deductively from laws and facts. Event to be explained already known Why did Mr Smith die? → P1 - Everyone who ingests a large amount of arsenic dies, P2 - Mr Smith ingested a large amount of arsenic, C - Mr Smith died. Deduction (Truth-preserving) reasoning in accordance with rules of logic Sound deduction - one in which premises are true (so conclusion must be). Nomological Involving laws or law-like (eg universal, necessary) principles Explanandum - conclusion - explananas - premises.
Identify 3 examples of deductive reasoning - use at least two premises and a conclusion
Deductive reasoning is when a claim is made and then supported by the conclusion. Try to prove their conclusion with inescapable logic all As are Bs, this is an A, this is a B. Deductive nomological explanation Hypothetic deductive method P1: Socrates is a man p2: all men are mortal c: Therefore Socrates is mortal P1: This is a banana p2: All bananas are yellow c: therefore this banana is yellow P1: Hannah is a doctor P2: All doctors are clever c: Hannah is clever
Explain what incommensurability is, then evaluate Kuhn's response to it - that accused him of making 'theory choice irrational'
Different scientific paradigms cannot be translated as there is no common standard that exists for evaluation - then how did we choose Einsten over Newton - Not only is paradigm change not a matter of rationality for Kuhn, it is also not a matter of "choice"! Like a religious conversion. arational
Define empiricism and rationalism - which of these 2 takes priority in establishing scientific knowledge?
Empiricism is the view that knowledge is gained from experience, rationalism is the view that knowledge is gained through reason. In establishing scientific knowledge, empiricism is favoured, as something must be testable and observable in order to be observed and studied, with reason alone insufficient to claim a scientific status.
Analyse the following definition of mechanism: (define terms in bold and say how they are related in formulating what a mechanism is) Mechanisms are entities and activities organised such that they are productive of regular changes from start or set up conditions to finish or termination conditions
Entities: substantial agents and their properties Activities: particular processes carried out by entities Productive of regular changes: Productive continuity - no gaps in the mechanism from set up to termination conditions Regular changes: types of mechanism not just particular process Can be linear or cyclical e.g. water cycle Start: set up conditions - enabling conditions may be omitted Finish: termination - equilibrium, rest - product
Define the following: Explanandum - Explanans - Type event - Token event -
Explanandum - What is being explained (conclusion) Explanans -what is doing the explaining (laws/ causality) Type event - event in time e.g. signal failures - tube delay Token event - specific/ particular event - signal failures at Westminster at 10am cause tube delay.
Describe Descartes' method of clear and distinct ideas, elucidating what he meant by clear and distinct. Is this scientific method satisfying?
For Descartes, clear and distinct ideas are ideas which we can perceive with the same clarity as the idea that 'I am a thinking thing that thinks', and if we can conceive of them clearly and distinctly this makes them true. Clear and distinct perceptions are defined by Descartes as those perceptions which are so self-evident that, while they are held in the mind, they cannot logically be doubted. This is because a benevolent God would grant us this clarity and distinction. This is not a satisfying scientific method as it is rests on the auxiliary assumption that God is real. Further, the terms 'clear' and 'distinct' could be interpreted objectively, and science requires some form of testability and empiricism.
Describe the following values and their trade offs in modelling Weisberg discusses? Generality: Precision: Realism: (accuracy)
Generality: How many targets does the model apply to? Precision: Ability to make specific predictions Realism: (accuracy) inclusion of relevant details to the target system Inclusion of relevant details Degree of representational fit Weisberg/ Potochnik call this accuracy But not the same as empirical adequacy Potential for Kuhn/ Longio values??
What is the structure of hypothetico-deductive method?
HDM/ Predicts an effect by deriving it deductively from laws + initial conditions P1. Everyone who ingests a large amount of arsenic dies P2. Mr Smith ingested a large amount of arsenic C. Mr Smith will probably die.
Write a short argument in favour either of Humean approach or anti-Humean approach
Humean Laws and current facts determine the future facts in a purely logical way - don't assume anything about what is causal or not. You can deduce future facts from current facts plus the laws. This is just because laws are in part facts about the future.The notion of determination is - a metaphysically thin one - not adding anything exciting or interesting
3 examples of inductive reasoning not used in lecture. Does probability of the conclusion being true vary in the examples? What does it depend upon
Inductive reasoning is when the premises seem to provide evidence for the conclusion. P1: All swans are white P2: This is white C: this is a swan P1: The sun rises everyday c: therefore the sun will rise tomorrow P1: Hannah is funny p2: teachers are funny c: Hannah is a teacher
Describe inference to the best explanation (IBE) and what best in such an explanation refers to (use e.g.)
Inference to the best explanation is abductive reasoning which favours the most likely conclusion P1: Someone ate my cake P2: There 2 people in the house but only one liked cake C: That one person that likes cake ate my cake This is the best conclusion as it seems to be the most likely/favourable conclusion, but not the only possible one
What is a model and what relation does it have to a target system?
Models a surrogate which represent the world indirectly in order to reason with the situation without directly interacting with it. The model represents a target system. The target system is derived from the real world though a process of abstraction It has semantic representation if it succeeds at representing the world if the objects and relations in the model correspond to those in the world. It has syntactic representation
What is the pessimistic meta-induction argument?
NO: The Pessimistic (Meta-)Induction all past scientific theories (even "successful" ones) have turned out to be "false," so our current theories are most likely false as well!
How might differences in values influence the manner in which scientific evidence is assessed?
Ontological heterogeneity: A theory characterized by ontological heterogeneity is one that grants parity to different kinds of entities - good for feminists as it rejects theories of inferiority Novelty: treating novelty as a virtue reflects doubt that mainstream theoretical frameworks are adequate to the problems confronting us, as well as suspicion of any frameworks developed in exclusionary context of modern european and american science
What is Popper's falsificationism and what was it a proposed solution to? Satisfactory?
Popper's falsification a solution to verificationism whereby a scientific claim or theory is meaningful it is is possible to prove it false. This view is superior to verificationism as it allows for universals such as 'all swans are white' to be disproved. However, it is not fully satisfactory as not all claims can be falsified.
Describe how Putnam makes use of reference and giving past theories the benefit of the doubt to argue for scientific realism? Do you find his argument convincing? Be prepared to defend your answer.
Principle of Charity - give past theories the "benefit of the doubt" when it comes to correct reference. If a past theory appears to refer to an object in current theory, we charitably accept it as successfully referring. This solves the problems of Kuhn's incommensurability because it allows different theories to be translated and used to solve another theory. E.g. reference 'wig' but actually purple hair - understand what they are talking about even if incorrect
Using the example of the flagpole describe the problem of causal asymmetry that DNE faces? Is this problem convincing.
Problem of causal asymmetry. Intuitively, the length of the shadow does not explain the height of the flagpole Because the shadow played no causal role in the flagpole's construction Yet, an "explanation" of the flagpole' height in terms of its shadow fits the D-N format - Shows that D-N account of explanation cannot be complete More generally, this problem will arise any time the laws appealed to are bidirectional (i.e. logically, both A implies B, and B implies A) Yes? - logical entailment does not necessarily respect the direction of causality. So, some "explanations" will respect the D-N format, yet fail to intuitively explain
What is van Fraassen's constructive empiricism (CE)? What roles do the notions of (a) empirical adequacy and (b) acceptance play in CE?
Rejects semantic ideas of unobservable entities e.g. radio waves but holds onto epistemic ideas - we should limit ourselves to what we see. All knowledge about the world comes through our senses. The theory can exist independently of us. We can accept the theory without accepting the entities. Constructive empiricism is the view that (a) science aims to produce theories that are empirically adequate rather than true, where a theory is empirically adequate precisely if what it says with respect to the observable phenomena (those entities and processes that can be directly observed by the unaided human eye) is true; and (b) that to accept a theory involves no more belief than that it is empirically adequate
What does it mean if a model is robust
Robustness -a modelling result is robust if it obtains under different modelling assumptions- different parameter values.. This would help pluralism which could have different inconsistent models reaching the same conclusion.
The scientific realism debate attempts to answer which question? How is this question related to the question of whether or not we should believe that the objects posited by successful scientific theories are real?
Scientific realism debate - Should we believe that successful scientific theories are true? YES: No miracles argument - otherwise their success would be a miracle - If you have a theory that has successful predictions and its not true it would be making those predictions as an accident which is implausible.
Name an important property of deductive arguments
TRUTH PRESERVING: This means it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.
In arguing that theory choice is objective, what does Kuhn mean when he claims that scientific values are a matter of judgement and not taste?
Taste - completely subjective There's no accounting for taste Subjective in the sense of purely matter of individual opinion Nothing to argue about Judgement Subject to debate, must be supported by reasons Even if rationality does not determine a unique outcome
Describe the problem of induction - is there a convincing manner of responding to it
The problem of induction is that induction presupposes the uniformity of nature, that future experience will resemble the past, whilst there is no guarantee this is so. For example, the sun may not rise tomorrow. A convincing way to respond to the problem of induction is
Describe the main project of the logical empiricists (LE), in doing so use the following concepts Observational sentences Theoretical sentences Bridging terms and definitions
The main project of the logical empiricists is to show the bridge between theoretical claims and observational sentences is that theoretical claims can be empirically justified in principle to create meaningful observational sentences.
Describe what a law is according to best systems account. How does this account avoid the problem of accidental regularities that arises for the simple regularity account of laws?
The simple regularity account says that laws of nature are no different to regularities in the world, (all Fs are G) this is good because it avoids the problem of necessary connections and it shows how one can discover the laws. But it runs into the problem of accidental regularities - that there is no distinction between law and accidental regularities (true universal claims but not laws, e.g. all families in my building have children.) Also the problem of empty laws, if there are no F's then all Fs are G is true. A better account is the best systems account - finding a true system S of fundamental laws S should be true and simple refer to only physically fundamental objects - powerful should unify and count for a wide range of phenomena. The best systems account is the one which does the best under these objectives.
What is meant by Kuhn's claim that 'paradigm change is arational'?
The standard of rationality only applies within a paradigm - outside the paradigm there is no common standard for comparison so no question of rationality Arational- not based on or governed by logical reasoning. For Kuhn there is no single, paradigm-independent set of goals to decide between rival paradigms. No rational decision - matter of preference
What is Humeanism and what is the general movement behind it?
There are no objective, fundamental truths about what must or might or can happen (modal claims that go beyond what does happen.) The fundamental facts are facts about what does happen
Describe Potochnik's pluralism with respect to scientific model endorsement/success is such pluralism a tenable position? How would you argue in favour or against?
There is value is having pluralism - it is consistent to endorse mutually inconsistent theories in the same target. We can have multiple successful models of the same phenomenon.
Are the trade-offs between two or more model values different than the trade-offs between theoretical values
Yes they are different because we do things with models they face pragmatic constraints. Whereas theoretical values cant be traded off in the same way because
How might logical asymmetry between falsification and verificationism lead to the claim that scientific reasoning is unjustified?
it is logically impossible to conclusively verify a universal proposition by reference to experience (as Hume saw clearly), but a single counter-instance conclusively falsifies the corresponding universal law. In a word, an exception, far from 'proving' a rule, conclusively refutes it.
