1
Q
B: View on Science
A
- socially reorganize science
- more appropriate set of values are most influential
- help to achieve more objective results
2
Q
B:Key Idea
A
- Epistemological practices (e.g. evidence gathering) that are more objectively good than others
- essential for addressing moral concerns
3
Q
B: Science Wars
A
- battle between subjective and objective ways of science
- extreme views are hopeless
- Brown says there needs to be middle ground
4
Q
B: Norm of Total Evidence
A
when deciding to believe/promote hypothesis:
- consider all relevant evidence
- don’t suppress any evidence
- don’t decide soeley on partial evidence
5
Q
B: Norm of Anecdotal Evidence
A
when deciding to follow up a challenge to your hypothesis:
- properly consider anecdotal evidence
- attend to preliminary results, not just large scale results
6
Q
B: Norm of Testing Rivals
A
when deciding to believe/promote hypothesis:
-test against any promising rivals beforehand
7
Q
B: Norm of Appropriate Study Subjects
A
when enrolling subjects to test hypothesis:
- ensure subjects chosen are relevant to hypothesis
- e.g. age specific, sex specific etc.
8
Q
Logical Positivism (General)
A
- c.1900 - 1950
- attempt to defend possibility of objective evidence
- more generally, objectivity of science
- Ernst Mach (inspiration)
9
Q
LP: Vienna Circle
A
- 1907-1912
- contained mathematicians, social scientists, physicists
- disgusted by racism, bigotry, nationalism
10
Q
LP View on Philosophy
A
found current (1900s) philosophy to be
- pretentious
- obscure
- dogmatic
- politically harmful
11
Q
Dogmatism
A
- catholic church dark ages of severe oppression
- scientific revolution aided
- dogmatism harms (through obscurity and pretension) leads people to believe things that would harm greater good
- e.g. intolerance for different ethnicity
12
Q
LP were Against
A
- nationalism
- intolerance
- fascism
- violence
- dogma
- obscurity
13
Q
LP were For
A
- Diversity
- Tolerance
- Peace
- Clarity
- Democratic social rule
- Open critique and dialogue
14
Q
LP Critical Aspects
A
- rejects all speculative philosophy
- e.g. metaphysics, religion
- seems to lack literal meaning
15
Q
LP Positive Aspects
A
- promotes empiricists view of knowledge
- science is supreme
- philosophy is only to clarify logic for justification in science
16
Q
LP Attacked Speculative Philosophy
A
- existence of god
- souls
- objects
- transcendent spirit
17
Q
Logical Empiricism
A
- salvaged scientific objectivity (from LP)
- emerged 1930s/1940s as LP faded
- Carl Hempel helped turn LP to LE
18
Q
Empiricism
A
experience is necessary for having knowledge
-(not sufficient)
19
Q
LE Questions
A
How CAN science work?
How SHOULD science work?
20
Q
LE Theories
A
can and should posit ONLY observable entities
21
Q
LE Evidence & Justification
A
- can and should ONLY involve logic and observations
- be objective
22
Q
Strict forms of Empiricism
A
- privileges special kind of experience
- directly perceived sense data = perceptions
- you only know what you directly sense
23
Q
Recent Empiricists
A
- still require experience for knowledge
- don’t limit what we know to direct perceptions
- can’t know non-observable
24
Q
Logical Empiricists
A
- agnostic -> silent about whether unobservables exist or we can know they do
- can talk about, only out of utility
25
Observations
-sensations of observable entities, relations, processes
26
Logic
-sometimes deductive, mostly non-deductive
27
Data Puritan (4 Part Method)
1. Data gathering
2. Data Organization
3. Induction to Generalization
4. Deduction to prediction
28
Hempel's Method for Data
1. Selective Data Gathering
2. Selective Data Organization
3. Induction to Generalization
4. Deduction to Prediction
29
Justification & Discovery
- justification is independent of discovery
| - aim to discover, and use rules
30
System of Inductive Logic
- each system tells you how strong/weak some data serves as evidence for a conclusion
- represent scores as epistemic probability
- can all assign strength differently
31
Hume's Skeptical Conclusion
It is Impossible to rationally justify inductive reasoning
32
Hume's conclusion wasn't
- that induction, science, and experience can't prove a claim to be true
- about rational justification for ACTING based on inductive reasoning
33
Hume's Presumed Criterion
any SIL if justified if:
1. Frequency
2. Comparative
34
Hume's Frequency Criterion
-inductive arguments that SIL implies are strong provide true conclusions, from true premises, MOST of the time
35
Hume's Comparative Criterion
-the inductive arguments that SIL consider strong, that prove conclusions to be true from the true premises more often than those of weaker SIL strength
36
demonstrative (deductive)
- offers guarantees
- not possible for inductive reasoning
- future inductive reasoning could fail
37
moral (inductive)
- circular argument
| - presuppose justification not support it
38
Principle of Uniformity of Nature
from causes which appear similar we expect similar effects
39
For best SIL, proceed as IF:
A. Historical Texts- most successful past scientific arguments
B. Intuitive tests - uncover overlooked implications of rules until intuition can tell which is right or not
40
RP: Theory of Inductive Support
-develop theory that accurately and intuitively tells us when observations support/confirm a generalization
41
RP: Theory of Projection
-formal theory that accurately and intuitively tells us how to infer properties of the NEXT case from properties of previous cases
42
Raven's Paradox
- All F's are G
| - Empiricists want generalizations
43
RP: Principles of Confirmation
-Raven's paradox show's two principles that both can't be correct
44
RP: First Confirmation
if you observe an F that is G, then it supports hypothesis that all Fs are G
45
RP: Second Confirmation
if you randomly observe something that seems unrelated to Fs and Gs then this does not support the hypothesis that all Fs are G
46
Logical Equivalence
same truth conditions
| -
47
I.J. Good's Choice
- showed whatever an observation confirms hypothesis isn't always objective
- depends on what is known/believed by the subjects
48
Godfrey-Smith's idea
- order that you gather reasonable beliefs through time influences if it is evidence
- hypothesis confirmed when observation had potential to refute the hypothesis
49
Goodman's New Riddle: Main Goal
- no formal theory of confirmation
| - inductive arguments can't just rely on form
50
Goodman's Language Implication
evidence strength may depend on language
51
GNR: Good Induction
- terms that have history of normal use in community
| - words of natural kind
52
Projectability Goodman
- need rules
| - for any prediction, regularity can be found that licenses such prediction
53
Goodman's Third Variable Thesis
- knowing form of argument isn't enough to support generalization
- even form + truth of content isn't enough
- need third variable, that helps determine if arguments are good
54
Projectible Properties Hypothesis
- TYPE of argument content
| - whether properties are projectible or not
55
Relative Risk Thesis
- evidential strength not an objective matter
| - relative to the language of subjects who give/interpret evidence
56
Popper's Response to Inductive Logic
-abandon it
57
Demarcation Problem
- finding criterion to distinguish science from pseudo science
- Popper looked at problem in terms of hypotheses
58
Popper's Answer to Demarcation
- fasifiability
- any hypothesis, H, is scientific iff:
- there is some possible observation that could deductively refute it as false
59
Popper: Relation to Confirmation and Testing
- should ONLY try to deductively refute
| - many scientists operate this way
60
Conjecture and Refutation (Popper)
- response to how science should work
- creative, imaginative, idea with RISK
- tough minded, no nonsense
61
Problems with Popper
- Science cannot rationally accept any hypotheses
- too exclusive- some hypotheses are probabilistic
- too exclusive! - due to holism about testing
- too inclusive - non-scientific hypotheses can satisfy falsifiability criterion
PHIL 220
flashcards
Decks in class (3)
# Cards
