STS 304 Exam 1

Kuhn & Normal Science

"Normal science" was characterized as routine day-to-day research focused on what Kuhn called "puzzle solving."

Induction

(1) Method for doing science in which particular facts are gathered, and then generalizations inferred from them. (2) Kind of argument in which particular cases used to argue for a generalization that goes beyond them. Problem of induction: can such inferences be warranted, and how?

Incommensurability

Different paradigms are hard to compare because they involve different standards for what counts as good evidence, and because key scientific terms can have different meanings

Context of discovery/justification

Distinction between the invention and evaluation of hypothesis/theory. Former is exclusively psychological, the latter is logical. For those upholding the distinction, there is no general logic of discovery, only a logic of testing or evaluation.

Anomaly

In Kuhn's theory, a puzzle that resists solution, can't be accommodated within normal science.

Normal Science

In Kuhn's theory, paradigm-governed science. Scientists applies fundamental ideas of the paradigm.

Covering Law Model

An influential account of scientific explanation that holds that to explain something is to show how to infer it in an argument that includes in the premises a statement of a law of nature. (Also referred to as Deductive-Nomological Model: Universal laws provide general premises for deducing event to be explained.)

Reductionism

Attempt to reduce theory of a higher level to or from theory of a lower

Deductive Logic

Branch of logic dealing with arguments in which if the premises of the argument are true, the conclusion is guaranteed to be true.

Rationalism

Knowledge gained through pure reasoning, independently of experience, e.g. mathematics.

Revolutionary Science

Kuhn's description, such as the discoveries of filterable viruses and prions, in which the progressive accumulation of anomalous observations led to a crisis that culminated in the generation of a new paradigm.

Paradigm

Narrow: Impressive achievement that guides tradition of further scientific work (normal science). Wide: Broad framework including theoretical ideas, methods, standards in the field.

Theory-Ladenness of Observation

Observation is not an unbiased way to test theories because observation statements are affected by theoretical beliefs.

Is the ideal of "value-free" science feasible? Is it desirable

Science can never be value-free. From this perspective, it is necessary to re-evaluate the role of values in science. Values play a significant role in science not only in the form of constitutive values, such as good-science norms, but also in the form of contextual values that are relevant to the science process

Instrumentalism

Scientific theories are instruments for prediction, rather than attempts to describe and explain an independent world.

Naturalism

Philosophical approach emphasizing links between philosophy and science. Methodological: Best way to address philosophical problems is to do so within our best scientific picture of the world. Sometimes (but not necessarily) includes claim about ultimately physical nature of everything that exists.

Confirmation

Relationship of support between evidence and hypothesis/theory. Difference from proof—a theory can be highly confirmed, while false. "Analytic project" attempts to analyze confirmation as an inductive relation.

A Priori/A Posteriori Distinction

Something known a priori is known independently of evidence gained from experience. Knowledge that relies on experience is a posteriori.

Demarcation Problem:

Term for the problem of distinguishing scientific from nonscientific theories. Objective is to establish a criterion for doing so. How to distinguish between science and non-science.

Karl Popper and Falsification/Real Science (What, for Popper, is the mark of real science? Explain why he takes it to be so)

The Falsification Principle proposes that for something to be scientific it must be be able to be proven false. If things are falsifiable (able to possibly be proven false) then they can be used in scientific studies and inquiry. An example of a falsifiable statement is that all cars are red. This statement can be proven false easily with any observation of a car that is not red. Anything that cannot be proven false is considered pseudo-science and not valid for scientific inquest. An example of a unfalsifiable statement is that invisible trolls that cannot be detected by humans live inside trees. This statement cannot be proven to be correct or false. Therefore it is not falsifiable and cannot be used in scientific inquiry.

is the autonomy of science defensible?

The autonomy of scientists should be restricted only for a compelling social purpose and the restriction should be the minimum necessary to achieve this purpose. I have argued for the autonomy of scientific organizations and institutions based on the utility (benefits/harms) of allowing scientific organizations and institutions to be self‐governing. To produce useful results for society, such as knowledge with practical applications and policy implications, scientists should be allowed to make decisions within their domain of expertise, free from outside interference and control. However, the autonomy of scientific organizations may be restricted if the social benefits of restriction outweigh the harms. There are a variety of legitimate reasons for restricting the autonomy of scientific organizations and institutions, including promoting health and safety, protecting the environment, ensuring financial accountability, promoting research integrity, protecting human and animal research subjects, and establishing fair employment practices.

Verificationism

The truth or rational justification of a scientific hypothesis depends on confirmation based on empirical data, observations, tests, or experiments.

Empiricism

The view that knowledge is derived from experience or that experience is fundamental in explaining knowledge, justification, and rationality.

Holism

The view that something cannot be understood without locating it in a larger whole. Holism about testing: we cannot test a single hypothesis in isolation. Meaning holism: meaning of any word depends on its connection to other words in the language. Epistemological holism: we cannot understand a particular thing or property in isolation.

Bayesianism

Treat all rational belief change as matter of updating degrees of belief in propositions.

Relativism

Truth or justification of a claim depends on one's point of view, or situation

Falsificationism

View of Popper, which he uses (i) to distinguish science from non-science and (ii) to express that all testing in science is attempting to refute theories by observation.

Scientific Realism

View that there is a real world and that one aim of science is to describe and explain it. The theoretical entities posited by a true scientific theory actually exist, even though they cannot be directly observed. Opposed by Instrumentalism.

logical advantage of falsificationism over inductivism

falsificationism has advantages over inductivism because testing a fact helps in improving a theory to its predecessor theory. Falsificationists believe that science is free of induction and in fact it is helping science for progress whereas inductivism works by seeking truth and is not contributing to progress in a rapid way.