Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Making Theoretical Progress (Falsification (Popper) (Degrees (More…
Making Theoretical Progress
Deductive and Inductive Reasoning
Deductive
Top-down approach
More narrow, hypothesis testing
Theory>hyp>observation>confirmation
General to specific
Inductive
Bottom-up
More open-ended and exploratory
Observation>pattern>tentative hyp>theory
Specific to general
Demarcation criteria
Observation, verification, induction
Vienna circle: logical positivism
Problems w/ Verificationism
Induction problem
Unobservable facts
Observations may be wrong or subjective
Falsification (Popper)
Austrian born scholar
Member of Vienna Circle
Prof at London school of economics
Initial interest = psych
Science questions itself
Falsification = disproving hyp/theory
Falsifiability = criterion for demarcating science from non-science
Hypothetico-Deductive Method
Observation>interpretation>hyp>test
Exp = empirically rounded
Degrees
More falsifiable = higher scientific status
More specific = more prone to falsification, and higher status
Theory of General Relativity - space, time and mass
No guarantee for correctness
Based on inductive uncertainty
Deductive preferred
Science = trial and error
Criteria for Choosing Theories
Scope
Good theory = wide-ranging claims about world
Precision
More precide = more falsifiable
Operational definition - describes exactly what the variables are and how measured (replicable)
Parsimony
Competing theories, fewest assumptions = favoured
Occam;s Razor - simple theories preferred
Increasing Falsifiability
More falsifiable = better
Should become more and more falsifiable
More content
More informative
Replacement theory = more falsifiable
Fruitfulness
Led to new empirical discoveries or scientific progress?
Falsifying + offering more precise/falsifiable replacements > new discoveries
Problems w/ Falsification
Counterintuitive way of thinking - corroborating evidence
Do not give up too easily
Ad hoc modification = changes to theory the make it less falsifiable
Kuhn
American physicist
Structure of scientific revolutions
Scientific paradigm - common views of discipline and how investigation should happen
Theory = prescience > normal science > crisis > revolution > new normal science > new crisis
Paradigm determines
What is observed/scrutinized
What kinds of questions
How questions structured
How results interpreted
How experiment conducted
What equipment
Structure of scientific revolution
Prescience: unorganised, observations/models explain small scale phenomena
Normal Science: share paradigms, attempts to falsify, modifications
Revolution: confidence decreases, crisis, scientific revolution + shift
Implications
Paradigms ever changing
Revolution = progress?
Knowledge = relative and time dependent
Scientists "puzzle solving"
Kuhn vs Popper
Kuhn
Normal science = important
Scientists should criticise occasionally
Hypercritical don't work
Conformity and puzzle solving
Popper
Normal science exist but not good as good science
Scientific approach = critical attitude
Criticism and non-conformity
Middle ground
Rule = converging evidence
Objective, reality, coupling of observations - verification and falsification (not in contradiction to reality)
Trial and error within paradigm
Series of falsification attempts