Unit 1.
What are the necessary parts to Hempel's model of reasoning?
1. Deductive. 2. Premises must be true 3. Premises must contain at least one general law. or General laws (explanan) Particular facts (explanan) (explanans) lead to Phenomenon to be explained (explanandum)
What 2 errors did Hempel make?
1. He thought that the explanans can be derived from explanandum (symmetrical connection, when in reality, it is assymetrical) (flag pole example). 2. Information must be relevant (birth control pills example).
What is the importance of matter in modern science?
Allows to conduct experiments.
What is causal reasoning?
Alternative to Hempel's. Everything has a cause. Relationships are asymmetric.
Outline the structures of scientific revolution.
An old paradigm that has too many conflicts, thesociety that is willing to accept new paradigm, a new paradigm and people to promote it.
What is the issue with science and consciousness?
Another why question. Let's say, we feel fear from barking dog. But why does it feel the way it feels. Neurotransmitters etc, but why our sensory systems interpret them into this particular feeling? Meh, eventually we will have scientific explanation, i am sure.
What were the origins of modern science? Was it the advent (advent: arriving of a notable person, thing or event) of new methodologies, the discovery of calculus, the employment of mathematics over logic, or something else?
Any science origins is philosophy. 1500-1700 Scientific revolution. Aristotle - philosopher made detailed theories that weren't true, yet rational i guess. 1542 Nicolas Copernicus' publishes a book attacking geocentric model of universe and putting sun as the fixed center of the universe. Around 1590-1642. Kepler and Galileo Galilei - orbits are not circular but are ellipses. Telescope pictures converted scientific community from Aristotelianism to Copernicanism. Galileo law of free fall - all bodies accelerate uniformly. Also objects fall at the same speed and are only different due to air resistance. Created experimental testing. Between 1642-1650 Rene Descartes: mechanical philosophy: world consists of inert (non-moving) particles of matter interacting or colliding with one another. Things are learned by observing these particles. Aristitelian view was finally completely scrapped. Newton between 1663 and 1727.. Agreed with mechanical view. Developed 3 laws of motion and universal gravitation. Created calculus. Universal gravitation - attraction between bodies based on mass and distance in both terrestrial and celestial domains. Newton's physics replaced Cartesian physics. 18th and 19th century expanded within Newtonian framework with major advances in chemistry, optics, thermodynamics and electromagnetism. 20th century: Newtonian view is challenged by relativity theory and quantum mechanics. Relativity theory: Newtonian theory do not work if applied to very massive objects or objects moving very fast. Quantum mechanics: Newtonian theory does not work if applied on a very small scale to subatomic particles. Physics is the most fundamental science. Biology: 1859: Charles Darwin published origins of species, theory of natural selection. 1953: Watson and Crick discovered structure of DNA Molecular biology emergence. 2003: Human Genome Project complete - entire map of human DNA. Late 20th century: cognitive psychology rise. Human mind is very similar to computer. Also neuroscience learns how brain works. 20th century: other sciences: sociology, anthropology etc developed, however are lagging behind due to having less predictive power.
Explain what a category is according to Aristotle. What about for Kant?
Aristotle is metaphysics - study of reality. He described what he saw in categories. Kant epistemology - study of knowledge. He grouped the categories logically and using rational thought of characteristics rather than observations, and created subcategories. "Aristotle's categories are general-logical and metaphysical terms. He defines the categories as "what is signified by expressions which are in no way composite" (Categories, §4). His list consists of ten categories: substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, position, state, action, affection. Kant's categories are logic-of-epistemology terms. He defines them as "conditions under which alone the manifold content of the sensuous intuitions can be united in one consciousness" (Critique of Pure Reason, Transcendental Logic, §16). His list consists of twelve categories, divided into four sets of three: (1) of quantity: unity, plurality, totality; (2) of quality: reality, negation, limitation; (3) of relation: substance- and- accident, cause- and- effect, reciprocity; (4) of modality: possibility, existence, necessity."
Deductive and Inductive reasoning outcomes are called what?
Conclusion for deductive vs better explanation
Explain video where Dr. David Albert, the head of Columbia University's philosophy of physics program, discusses the importance of philosophy and science.
David Albert has degrees in both physics and philosophy. He says that there is no difference between philosophers and physicists at very advanced levels. The do the same job: rational reasoning, because empirical testing is not available.
What are differences between deductive and inductive forms of reasoning? Is one necessarily better than the other?
Deductive is when the premises are true, the conclusion belongs to premise group and must be true. Inductive reasoning is when the premises are true, but conclusion does not cover entire premises group. Deductive reasoning is more accurate, because inductive reasoning only estimates. However, deductive reasoning is often impossible in science. For example, children we observed all like chocolate milk. We conclude that all children like chocolate milk. However, we haven't examined all children in the world, so we use inductive reasoning. It is impossible to examine all children in the world.
What is inference to the best explanation.
Finding most likely explanation from several premises. A problem is that sometimes the most likely one is not the correct one.
Does science explain how the actual material works, or is it an artificial construct of human thought?
For observable items, yes, as we can directly see, empirically test and predict future behavior. For unobservable items, we don't know. We can test and sometimes predict behavior, but we can't directly see.
What is causal inference?
Helps us estimate the degree or likelihood probability of a theory with variables change. For example, normal inference is simply probability likelyhood, when causal inference is more precise and fluctuates with the new data added.
Explain idealism, realism and instrumentalism (non-realism), empiricism understanding of science and world.
Idealism explains universe dependent on how we see it. Realism explains universe as purely materialistic, regardless of our thinking. Instrumentalism explains universe independent of our thinking, but we can never understand it completely.
Explain incommensurably and theory-ladenness of data.
Incommensurably is when two theories of equal weight are considered, but they don't cross each other at all and explain thr same phenomena completely differently. How then do we know which one is right? Theory-ladenness is that our perception an interpretation is biased by our specific theoretical knowledge.
How do Hume's ideas influence our understanding of science?
Inductive thinking is not always accurate. Deductive thinking is 100% accurate, but inductive is not. Everything can be questioned. We have to rely on inductive thinking sometimes, because it is impossible to use inductive thinking all the time. Also earth has prevalent rational inductive thinking, but we need to be careful about it.
According to Popper, psycho-analysis is not a science. Why not?
It is not because it cannot be falsified.
Define logical positivism.
It reasons through scientific data and rationality. Compare observable evidence to select one of competing theories.
Assess Kuhn and the rationality of science.
Kuhn believed that science cannot be completely rational due to the process how paradigms are followed by revolutions, theory-ladedness and incommensuality.
Might there be other types of valid scientific reasoning?
No, because everything else is prone to bias.
Assess the under determination argument.
Non-realists argue that there can be multiple explanations for the same phenomena. Realists say that the descriptions that most accurately, simpler describe phenomena are likely to be true. Also irl there rarely are multiple explanations.
Does a specific approach to science necessarily preclude certain conclusions?
Not always, because we do not always have all information. Sometimes new evidence comes along and changes our conclusions. However, for the information available, scientific method gives us the most accurate conclusions.
Explain the observable/unobservable distinction.
Observable - we can see with our own eyes. Unobservable - we can't see, but we can make it's influence visible through making it interact with visible things.
Explain reduction of everything to physics.
Physics is the most basic science. Everything alive comes from physics. Does it mean that physics can explain everything? Nope, fundamental physics cannot. For example, it does not differentiate between different types of cells. However, i personally view biology and chemistry as the specialized extension of physics. So is psychology. Psychology studies physics outwards in and tries to modify physical brain processes through behavior.
What is the biggest difference between Kuhn's and Popper's view of scientific process and discovery?
Popper's process: scientist goes to work and all the sudden discovers something major. Popper's discovery: all the sudden everything changes with new evidence. Kuhn's process: scientist goes to work and meticulously works on the project with slow progress. Kuhn's discovery: slowly change from one major theory to another. Even if the strong evidence against the current is available, the old theory is used until the new theory is developed sufficiently to be used.
Explain the pros and cons of sticking to falsifiable testing only
Pros: empirically correct Cons: sometimes sticking with trying to prove the theory brings great results (there can be exceptions in theories) sometimes the science is so advanced you no longer have empirical means to test it
What is metaphysical realism and idealism?
Realism has nothing to do with metaphysics. Realism believes that the world exists independent of our minds. Idealism explains that the world exists based on what we see through our eyes.
What is the "no miracles" argument?
Realists argue that there is so much evidence that leads to scientific explanations that are later proven to be true that it doesn't make sense to think it is all just random alternative explanations. Especially considering how far science has brought us.
How does a scientist know that science is science? What is the difference between science and pseudoscience? Astronomy and astrology?
Science - can be empirically tested with a goal to disprove. Pseudoscience - cannot be empirically tested to disprove. Astronomy: based on empirical proven theories. Expands theories beyond possibility of empirical testing only due to inability to test. These theories will tested as soon as opportunity comes along. This is where it meets philosophy. Astrology - not even based on empirically proven theories. Not designed to be tested.
What is science? Is it math? Is it biology? Is it psychology? Why or why not? What is the difference between scientists and philosophers?
Science is by one theory anything that can be empirically tested. Math is a science. You can test and retest its theories with the numbers etc. Biology is a science you can test theories with eyes and measuring equipment. Psychology is a science, because you can observe theories you test. Science also hits advanced level where you can no longer test due to the lack of means to test with. The means have not been created. This is where advanced science become philosophy. Philosophers question everything: experiments themselves and the scientist's reasoning. Why does the scientist thing this experiment will work out? Why do we assume future repetitions will have the same result. Scientists are focused on testing the theories so their thoroughness is less than philosophical thoroughness.
Define scientific realism and anti-realism.
Scientific realism believes that it is exploring the world through empirical evidence and rational thinking. Anti-realism believes that we are not exploring, but rather are coming up with plausible empirically supported explanations.
Why do scientific revolutions take place? Is it because of new discoveries? New methodologies? New instruments? Or might it be due to change in metaphysical beliefs, social, political, or cultural revolutions?
Scientific revolutions are combinations of all the above. A new paradigm needs to be developed, before prior paradigm is let go. New materials, discoveries provide new data. Acceptance in the society helps promote the theory. Scientists pressure each other.
What is an explanation compared to causality?
Some things dont have causes, like water broken down in H2O
What is the importance of the demarcation question in science?
Sometimes evidence is conflicting because of alternative explanations. Sometimes we need to find an alternative explanation and the theory will make sense. Some advanced theories cannot be tested yet due to the lack of means.
Explain Kuhn's argument that there is no algorithm for theory choice.
There is no algorithm which to follow to select best theory out of alternatives provided.
How does a scientist define and employ reason?
Through scientific inference (=reasoning): deduction and induction.
What is the role of math and experiments in modern science?
To falsify theories to avoid doing pseudoscience.
What is scientific reasoning?
Using empirical evidence to disprove a theory in order to prove it. Our mind's reasoning ability is too biased.
Can science explain everything?
We don't know, because lots of why questions are left unanswered. For example, why do we exist?
Consider this almost heretical thought—does science actually explain the universe as it actually is? Why might this be/not be the case?
We don't know. Per realism yes, per non-realism no. We can only make educated guesses about things that we can't observe. They can exist or they can not exist.
