Phil 8
What different things might it mean to claim that observation is theory-laden?
1 theories tell u where to look in the world 2 observation reports are often framed in terms of vocab native to certain theory such that ppl in diff theories wil disagree 3 only can be framed in terms of vocab native to a theory
Methodological Rules in Feyerabend
"Principle of Tenacity": Hold on to theories even when they seem to have problems, or they will not develop to their maximum potential. "Principle of Proliferation": As much as possible, explore new ideas --- even ones that seem absurd.
What is the main argument in favor of the view that our current scinetific 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.
What is the main argument against that claim of 1) sci realism
"pessimistic induction" from the history of science: 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. all our past theoires have been false so our theories now are most likely false
*What different theses go by the name of "scientific realism"?*
1)Our best scientific theories do accurately describe reality, and it is a reality that exists independently of our beliefs about it. Thus, if our best physical theories say that there are neutrinos, then it is reasonable for us to say that there probably are neutrinos. 2) The aim of science is to discover the structure of a mind-independent reality. Unlike the first notion of scientific realism, this does not commit the holder to the view that science has achieved this aim, but it does commit the holder to the view that it is a reasonable aim to have. Moreover, most who hold this view would think that as time goes on
What methodological principiles does Lakatos give for working within a scientific research program?
1)Within a scientific research program, changes should only be made to the protective belt. To change the hard core would just be to shift from one scientific research program to another. 2)Changes to the protective belt should be progressive in the sense that it should expand its domain of application to larger and larger areas.
What are the four features that it requires of an explanation?
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 3.The explanans must be true, 4. The explanans must have "empirical content."
what is the hardcore of the program
A hard core really represents the main elements of the research program.In Darwinian biology, the hard core would be the claim that species are linked by family trees which represent evolutionary descent.
When is a research program progressive and when is it degenerative?
A program that keeps expanding and is able to handle new domains is progressive. One that is not successfully being extended to handle new domains is degenerating.
what is the protective belt of the program?
A protective belt of auxiliary hypotheses which are used to apply the hard core to particular cases. For example, for Darwinian biology, the protective belt consists of particular detailed stories about the relationships between species. it is these hypotheses that will be rejected if an incorrect prediction is deduced. Thus, they serve to protect the hard core from falsification.
What research tradition does Laudan think that scientists would be rational to accept?
Accept the ones that have the highest level of problem solving power
What are the features of a good scientific theory according to the later Kuhn?
Accuracy, simplicity, fruitfulness, int/ ext/ consistency int cant contradict itself ext doesn't contradict other theories. consistency, and breadth of scope
What is van Fraussen's argument for the claim that it is not even the aim of science to describe the unobservable world?
Aim of science is to provide empirically adequate thoeres as long as it is able to correctly predict and describe the observable world it has met the aim of science.
What problems do Feyeraband's position face?
Feyerabend gives us no rule for the rejection of a scientific theory. Godfrey-Smith claims that Feyerabend's picture seems appropriate if we want science to be exciting, but not if we want it to solve practical problems. it faces the problem of wondering what his position even is and why it isn't just flat out contradictory idea of epist anarchism is that anything goes but then gives us rules methodological when he claims scientists against reason doesn't have clear grounds for it gives case galileo reasoning look it would be totally irrational to think earth moves in 17th century so gal thought earth did move but he was thinking irrational he was right heres a case being inclined against reason was sci rational thing to do even if u think feyeraband has accurately described that case gali was being irrational its not clear why you would generalize that to its best to be inclined against reason it just shows sometimes believeing the irrational thing works out isn't clear that it does work out it might be the right thing to do to pursue something in sci that seems absurd or irrational but idea that it is the right thing seems overly strong tooeasy to go against reason
What is the distinction that Laudan raises between pursuing a research tradtiion and accepting it?
For Laudan, a scientist might be rational to pursue a research tradition without accepting it as true, To accept a research tradition is to think that it is likely true. However, one can pursue a line of research without thinking that it is likely true. For example, one could think that a certain line of research is very unlikely to be true, but that if it were true, the reward for pursuing it would be quite large. Or,it might be rewarding to work on a theory that one does not believe to be true.
According to Lakatos, what does a sci research program consist of?
Hardcore and protective belt
What is the thesis of "incommensurability"
Incommensurable: they are not comparable by any neutral standard A paradigm includes its 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 sorts of metaphors does Kuhn use to describe the shift that happens in a scientific revolution?
Kuhn says the paradigm shift is like a "conversion experience" or a "gestalt shift" no real reason why you believe the new paradigm it just happens; leads people to think that the shift from one paradigm to another is an irrational process
What does godfrey-smith think that laudan and lakatos ignore
Lakatos and Laudan ignore the fact that the decision of which research program (or tradition) to work in might depend upon how many people are currently working within that program. Laudan's theory, particularly, seems to point everyone towards working in the same research tradition.they dont talk about how many ppl are working in this research tradition i work at a different one I can, many good things are going to come from it whether I work in it or not
How does Longino argue that the virtues she lists are "cognitive virtues"
Longino argues that she too can give sets of virtues that lead to the same truth that kuhn's traditional virtues do but in a more socio-politically correct way
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?
People might leave it for no reason. It seems to indicate a sudden overthrow, not just of inessential parts of the old paradigm, but of the very essence of it.
What is one of the successes of Bayesian theory of confirmation?
The Quine-Duhem problem was that --- since it always takes more than one piece of information to make a prediction --- logic alone cannot tell us which piece of information was wrong when the prediction does not come true. Bayesianism can help with this problem. We can apply Bayesian confirmation theory both to the theory and to the auxiliary hypotheses that are used to make the prediction, and we can see 1) which drops the most in terms of probability, and 2) whether one of them comes to have a probability less than .5 in which case it is now as likely not to be true as to be true.
What is the explanandum
The explanandum is the fact to be explained, or the fact that is explained.
What is the explanans of an explanation
The explanans is the fact (or facts) that explains the explanandum.
What is a problem with Bayesian theory of confirmation?
The prior probabilities here are just degrees of belief, and Bayesian's generally claim that as long as one's degrees of belief adhere to the axioms of probability the person is being rational. So, two different scientists could have wildly different degrees of belief in a new hypothesis without either one of them being irrational. Doesn't this make science too subjective? The standard answer appeals to the "washing out of the priors." One can show that as more and more evidence comes in, the degrees of belief of the scientists will converge towards each other even if they were once far away. So, in the long run, the subjective element gets washed away by the evidence.
Feyerabands Epistemilogical Anarchism view
There are no rules of rational inquiry in science. Such rules would only be constraints on creativity, and science requires creativity.anything goes
What makes van Fraussen think that there is something more problematic about trusting what microscopes seem to be showing us than what telsecopes seem to be showing us?
Van fraussen we can check to see if what we see in telescope is accurate and we can go look and reassure ourselves that what we see in the telescope is really there we have an independent check on the telescope telling us something accurate we have no way of checking only access to that item is the microscope van fraussen worried whether we can trust what we see in microscope given we have no way of independent checking but van fraussen is agnostic about whether we can believe in unobservable thing doesn't think we have grounds to believe in that story because it appeals to unobservable things were not in a great position to believe the stories we tell
How is Bayes' therom used in a theory of confirmation?
When one learns that E, one's degree of belief in H (i.e. Pr(H)) should be updated to reflect that knowledge according to Bayes' theorem. Thus, one's new degree of belief in H should be one's old degree of belief in H given E: . This is known as "Bayesian updating"
Why does Lakatos' account never tell us that a certain research program should be definitively abandoned?
because the thinks that it could always make a comeback
What is the main criticism of that view of explanation?
cannot capture the asymmetry of explanation. Like flag pole and shadow can't explain the height of the flag pole of the shadow u can give something that is a good explanation but in fact not an explanation what i can do is I can give a deduction it will fulfill everything it says needs to be filled but its not an explanation wouldn't be appropriate answer according to deductive nomilogical model that would be explanation so something has to be wrong about it male taking bc pills doesn't explain hwy I don't get pregnantbut it looks like it would be a fine explanation if you think everyone who takes bc pills it would fail to get pregnant
What is it for something to be a "cognitive virtue"?
cognitive virtues are supposed to be indicative of truth the virtues he lists are cognitive virtues if the theory is simple it is indicitave of it being true
What features does Longino list as belonging to a good scientific theory?
empirical adequacy, novelty, ontological heteroginity, complexity of relationship, applicability to human needs, diffusion of power
How does Laudan's theory of "scientific research tradtions" differ from Lakatos' theory?
for lakatos hardcore essential to sci research program. the hard core is definitive of a scientific research program. ladaun not essential to sci research tradtion for However, Laudan's notion of a research tradition allows for movement into and out of the hard core.
Van fraussen's view of the unobservable world
he doesnt think we can know unobservable things it might look like we see electrons but we cant know for sure very distrustful of the unobservable world
Why would it be a problem if observation were theory-laden in the various senses?
idea that theories direct us where to look, when we state what we observe /what we saw can be disputable worry are ppl in different paradigms going to be unable to agree on what they just sawcould we get into a dispute about whether we saw the flame go out i saw dancing light not flame another saw the flame go out
What is relativism?
idea that whats true depends upon what ppl believes/ The truth depends upon your point of view or your beliefs.
What makes one think that Kuhn might be a relativst?
if ppl believe its rude to eat with elbows on table it is the truth seems to depend upon what ppl believe seems Kuhn telling us whats the truth of the world depends upon what ppl believe where some would say ppl in phlygyston theory thought there was phlygyston to say they lived in a world with phlygyston means nothing more than they believed in where it sounds like ppl lived with phlygyston Kuhn says theres no need to assume there is a concrete word
Why does it seem reasonable to think that belief comes in degrees?
introspection I ask myself do I believe 2+2= 4 more strongly than I believe that my parents are home right now • im not as confident that they are home as I am 2+2 I believe them both but im a lot more confident about one than the other
Why might it lead one to think that one can't have knowledge of the unobservable?
it would be rash to believe it because he thinks that give me a theory t and theres a theory t prime that makes predictions of the same things we shouldn't believe the theories theres another theory that makes same predictions on a different theory would u believe that theory of electrons if theres another theory that says there aren't electrons and makes those same prediciton no clear ground for thinking t 1 or t prime right one says one thing and another says another so why believe it
What is an example of an explnanation that proceeds via a claim that is (arguably) false?
its hard to say something true yet we think we are providing explanations even in cases where we know we might not be true cartwright thinks when we say things they aren't true but as long as they are true ceteris paribus u were to ask why did price go up I say because demand goes up but its not true its only true other things being equal demand goes up price goes up we explain things that are true only ceteris pariubus
What is ceteris paribus claim?
other things being equal when demand for product goes up price goes up but isn't true can also mean other things being right
What research traditions does Laudan think that scientists would be rational to pursue?
pursue the research tradtion that has the highest rate of progress when it comes to problem solving.
What is the covering-law model of explanation?
shows why the phenomenon in question was to be expected
*What is common sense realism*
the component of realism that both sci realism haver in common common sensical claim that there is a mind independent world this isn't just a dream or if there is a dream there is still a mind ind world even if there were no creatures with minds there would still b a world it wouldn't just disappear
Why does Feyerabend think that science is sometimes dogmatic even when it comes to observational claims?
the time might have dogmatically thought that the earth doesn't move its just I direct fact of observation we would b able to tell or feel it but we feel nothing its just observationally wrong to claim the earth moves just like ppl can be dogmatic of their theries they can also be dogmatic about saying things like we sould be able to tell that the earth moves so its just a direct observation that the earth moved Part of what Galileo had to do destroy the dogmatism that makes us think that it is contrary to our experience that the Earth moves. If you go based off of observational claims you can still be wrong
Why does Kuhn think that scientists working in different paradigms have a hard time communicating with each other?
they use key terms in different ways or they use completely different terms.
What is the underdetermination of theory by evidence as stated by Hesse?
udt1 for any theory t there is a rival theory t prime that makes completely different claims about the unobservable world but uses the same evidence. no clear grounds for believing one over other because by all same grounds we have seen make same prediction the evidence available to us at a given time may be insufficient to determine what beliefs we should hold in response to it.
What is Hacking's grid argument
way of thinking what we are seeing in a microscope is accurate we cant shrink ourselves down to an omiba but and say the microscope hsowed us something accurate what ian hacking says against van fraussen is I can make a grid but to use some process to shrink it down where looking at it with my eye is whether or not it has the shape or not cant tell possible it doesn't but if u stick the microscopic thing and look at it under the microscope and see if you see something like the regular size image and what hacking thinks is in some ways its an inference to the best explanation is the tiny shape is the same thing as the other HAKCING THINKS ITS POSSIBLE IT DISTORTS THE SHAPE TO WHERE IT LOOKS LIKE A GRID but its likely not it's the original explanation
Why does cartwright think that the explnanas of an explanation does not need to be true?
we would be satisfied with explanation even its not true i let go of chalk it falls u say why suppose i say well whenever something is under the force of gravity it falls do u feel like u got an explanation? Kind of but that doesn't mean what I said is true im not falling right nwo but im under force of gravity feeling having provided explanations where the thing said isn't true