Philosophy of Science

Class 4

Philosophy of Science DebateRules of Play

Each team member must ask 1 question and answer 1 question.Teams have 30 sec. to deliver question, 30 sec. to correct vague question.Teams have 1 minute to prepare an answerTeams have 1 minute to answer question. Scoring Rules: Teams earn 1 point for good question, ½ point for so/so question, 0 pt

for poor question.Teams earn 1 point for good quality answer. ½ point for so/so answer, 0 pt for poor answer.Teams can earn 1 point by “rescuing” a poorly-answered question, or

expanding on a so/so answer.

Philosophy of Science DebateRescuing questions: If question not fully answered, other teams have opportunity to rescue. If 2 teams both wish to rescue, will choose with coin-toss. Play duration: Each member of each team must ask 1 question and answer 1 question, NOT counting “rescues”. If teams run out of questions, Kent will supply new ones.

Order of asking/answering:

Asker team: Team that just answeredAnswer team: Kent determines

Philosophy of Science Debate

Grading  8-10 Pts A Full credit (5 grade pts)

6-7 Pts B 4 grade pts

4-5 Pts C 3 grade pts

3 Pts D 1 grade pt

0-2 Pts F 0 grade pts

Karl Popper

“Received Wisdom” vs. Induction

Received Wisdom: Nightmares due to excess black bile.Cure: Bleeding.

Induction critique: Where is this black bile? Show me!Bleeding works? Show me!

InductionInduction: General statements arise from specific observations.

Obs. 1: People with nightmares have past traumas.Obs. 2: Talking about traumas relieves nightmaresGeneral rule: Undisclosed bad events lead to psych. Distress

Problems with Induction:

1. Infinite regress: Where is “ground zero” for observation?a. Nightmares? Or all bad dreams? What makes a

dream “bad”? What makes a dream a dream? Are dreams

real?

b. Disclosure: Talking only? Or talking with feeling? What’s a feeling? What is an authentic feeling? Are emotions real?

2. Reliance on “facts”: “Observable Facts” are building blocks for induction. But humans are fallible, can misperceive, so “facts” are at best probabilities. But can you build upon probabilities?

Science NOT About Discovery; About Verification

Creation of new ideas is a problem of empirical Psychology: [YEE HAW!!!]

It is NOT a scientific problem.

How we acquire new info. Is province of psych. of knowledge.How we evaluate new info is the province of science.

Science is NOT the inspiration of discovery, but “rational reconstruction”.

Problem of DemarcationDemarcation Point (DP): Where science differentiates itself from math, philosophy, humanities in creating knowledge.

DP for positivists: Sensory experience. Theory based on concepts Evolution Natural selection Concepts based on experience Natural sel. seeing adaptations Experience based on senses Adaps. Experienced sight, sound. Science for positivists: Only things reducible to observations.

“Metaphysics”: Concepts, beliefs that cannot be directly observed.Examples: Mind, belief, hope, “discovery”

Positivists condemn metaphysics as “twaddle”

Positivists’ Conundrum in Psychology

Positivists believe that only observables count as science.

But how do you observe psychological basics?

“Structuralists” used “introspectionists”-- a classic case of infinite regress.

Experience as Method Popper poses three criterion of science:

1.Synthetic: The pieces (theories, concepts, observations) must fit together; cannot contradict each other.

2.Satisfy criterion of demarcation: Must relate to real world, not a matter of metaphysics. I.e., such issues as “why do we exist” and “what’s the purpose of life” “what is ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are metaphysical questions.

3.Distinct from other knowledge domains: How is science different from arts, philosophy, history, math?

Falsifiablity as Criterion of Demarcation

Scientific method about exposing to falsification every aspect of system to be tested.

“Positive mood enhances creativity”

Each aspect of this statement should be challenge-able.

There is no need to both verify and falsify. Sufficient to just falsify; do this and “verification” takes care of itself.

Falsifiablity as Criterion of Demarcation

Scientific method about exposing to falsification every aspect of system to be tested.

“Positive mood enhances creativity”

Each aspect of this statement should be challenge-able.

There is no need to both verify and falsify. Sufficient to just falsify; do this and “verification” takes care of itself.