Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
What is scientific knowledge and how does it progress? (Popper (What…
What is scientific knowledge and how does it progress?
Popper (What science ought to be)
Characteristics of science
Objectivity
Given information is reliable and consistently observed
Clarity
Clear explanations that cannot be misinterpreted
Reduction
Reducing itheories to the essential and relevant information
Adaptability
Scientific knowledge is never final & is revisable
Well-defined methods
Methodology (operationalizations) are specific explanations of legitimized facts
Systematicity
Well-structured and methodical theories
Logical Positivism
manifest images
Using common sense to describe objects & world
scientific images
Theoretical way of describing the world
Claimed science is falsifiable & everyday knowledge isn't
Problem of Demarcation
The distinction between science and pseudoscience
Ex: Astronomy & astrology
Constant confirmation/verification of theories
Due to the high explanatory power
Regarding Adler & Freud's theories
Any human behavior was interpretable by them
If it fit, it was confirmed!
Theory can be refuted if:
Observations show predicted effect is clearly absent
The above considerations led to these conclusions:
Confirmations count if resulted from risky predictions
Should anticipate any incompatible events
“good” scientific theory forbids certain occurrences
If looking for confirmations, verifications are easily obtained
Non-refuatble theory by conceivable events is non-scientific
Genuine testability is falsifiability — degrees of testatbility
Genuine test results count as confirming evidence
Admirers uphold theory even when found false
Conventional twist/Conventional stratagem
#
Reinterpreting theory ad hoc, to avoid refutation
Reinterpreting evidence and theory so they agree
Ex: Marxist theory
Criteria of scientific status of theory:
Falsifiability/Refutability/Testability
Ex: Einsteins theory of gravitation --> possibility of refutation
Solution to the problem is falsification!
Growth of human knowledge
Knowledge comes from problems and attempts to solve them
4 steps of deduction procedure
Testing
Testing through empirical applications of derived conclusions
If conclusions = false, theory isn't entirely correct
Formal
Testing theory's internal consistency, looking for contradictions
Empirical content
Comparison of new theory with existing ones
Semi-formal
Distinction between empirical & logical elements --> avoiding category-mistake
Falsified theory shouldn't be abandoned until substituted
Criticisms
Theories could potentially be falsified in the future
Confirmation bias
Once theory's incorrect, no further research's done
Ex: Slightly altered theory
Can't claim falsifiability to simply be incompatibility
Critical scientists
Induction :red_cross: (Specific --> general)
Deduction :check: (General --> specific)
Kuhn (What science historically has been)
Structure of scientific revolutions
Paradigm shifts happen suddenly, not step by step
Change in paradigm occurs with new findings/inventions
May not be applicable to social sciences
Still in the pre-paradigm phase
Physics for example is less difficult to prove
Paradigms
Exemplar
Case is explained through the current paradigm
Anomaly
Unexplainable (by paradigm) reccurence in observations
Possible outcomes from anomaly:
New paradigm is created
Ignored until acceptable explanation arises
An explanation is given from accepted paradigms
Accepting paradigms occurs through 4 phases:
Paradigm phase
Dominant & accepted view, alternative theories can flourish
Crisis
Controversy amongst current supporters & new-way thinkers
Pre-paradigm phase
Several differing perspectives, most prominent viewpoint's supported
Revolution phase
Change in beliefs, paradigm gets replaced
Cycle begins again at pre-paradigm stage
Widely & scientifically accepted knowledge
Platform for further scientific knowledge to build-on
Leads to more accurate methodology & data interpretations
Correspondence theory of truth
Truth of statements determined by correspondence to world
Kuhn believed science is more subjective
Widely accepted ideas are easily proven false
Evolutionary epistemology
Successful ideas survive, while unsuccessful one's vanish
Kuhn disagreed that multiples viewpoints can co-exist
Criticisms
A paradigm isn't necessarily accurate or true
No true scientific progress, anomalies continually occur
Inhibits further research once current paradigm's believed
Difficulty determining accuracy when comparing paradigms
Popper vs. Kuhn
Popper:
Scientist's job is being critical
Especially when establishing hypotheses
Scientific revolution is a step by step process
Aimed to make distinction between everyday knowledge & science
Introduced falsifiability, solving demarcation problem
Science progresses closer to the truth
Kuhn:
Scientists job is problem-solving, not criticism
Scientific revolutions occurs suddenly
Theory was applicable to all knowledge, scientific & pseudo-scientific
Introduced concept of paradigmatic shifts in science
Science doesn't progress, only within a paradigm
Science works because there's a balance between:
Problem-solving scientists
Critical scientists
Confirmatory research
Hindsight bias
Easier to make claims and explanations after testing
Altering prior made predictions of theory
Confirmation bias
Fitting information's better remembered , schema's already in place
Tendency to look for confirming information, rather than contradicting
Interpreting ambiguous information to fit previous ideas
Fairy-tale factor
Cherry picking
Selecting supportive results & excluding deviations
Double dipping
#
Using same data to create & confirm hypotheses
Explaining ambiguous information after data's been gathered
Publication bias
Verifying hypotheses & using methods based on available data
Articles are published, once significant results found
High rate of Type-I-errors
when hypothesis is based on data
Preventing bias
Separating confirmatory from exploratory research
Increasing publication of non-significant results
Pre-registration of methods and statistical analyses
De Groot's empirical cycle
Evaluations
Testing
Deduction
Induction
Observation