Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Science Theory (Epistemology) (Truth (Lecture 2) (Conceptions of Truth…
Science Theory
(Epistemology)
World full of phenomena
(Lecture 1)
Science Theory
bt the Relation btw Science & the World
Central Question(s):
shall I
BELIEVE
this?
will I
accept it AS TRUE
?
is it
JUSTIFIED
well enough?
Sources of Knowl.
Empirism
Knowl
. is Mainly based on
Experience
(Senses)
Experience first, and then --> Theory
Induction
:
from the Particular to --> the General
Bottom-Up
Problem of
Particularism
Particular Data does not include (more Abstract and wider-Scope):
relations
cause-effects
normality
necessity
A tentative Solution
1 more item...
we only have Particular data (sensorial impressions of here and now)
how can we say smth General bt the World?
Rationalism
Knowl
. comes from Thinking,
Reasoning
Deduction
:
from the General --> to the Particular
Top-Down
If the Premises are True, then: the Conclusions are also True
claims to be Wholly Independent from Sensorial data
Abduction
Inference to the best Explanation
start from Observation
/Data
form some
plausible Hypotheses
ex. Discovery of Neptune, or
Kepler & the movement of the planets in the Solar system
Truth
(Lecture 2)
Conceptions of Truth
Correspondentivism
Corrspondence btw 'p' and a phenomenon:
T = correspondence
F = No correspondence
Coherence
'p' is T if it is an a Coherent System w other 'p'
Instrumentalistic
does 'p'
Work
?
is it
Effective
?
is it
Functional
?
canNot find out Truth, &
we are Not Interested in it either
if I
act 'AS IF p'
, do I get the
results I Expected
?
is a Property of a Claim, Theory, ...
Binary:
either T
or F
Degress of T
Only Indirect Access
to T
Anti-Dogmatism: ∀ claims & theories can in principle be false
Popper: no access to T, can only know that they are False
Diff. btw True (Absolute T) and 'to hold as True' (Relative T)
through
Evidence
& Justification
Empirical
Theoretical
Good Reasons:
Logical
Ethical
Aesthetical
Positive
Support
(≠ Verify) / Indicates / Corroborates
Negative
(Disconfirm ≠ Falsify)
Negatively support
, Indicates Falsity
Hanson's Thesis
∀
Observarions
are
THEORY-LADEN
no observation W/Out:
Presuppositions
Values/Attitudes
Prejudices
Framework
Background-Knowledge
Intentions
Theory as Glasses
our Theoretical Loads
Influences (≠ determines) what we are able to Observe
Criticism to Empiricism
No: Experience first --> Theory later, BUT
Yes:
Theory first
--> Experiences later
research
does Not
begin
w Data,
but w
Theory
Objectivity
established through:
Re-Testing
Discussion
Availability of data
if it
Survives
the
Cycles of
Re-Testing and Critical Discussion
it is Objective (≠ T)
Conceptions of Science
(Lecture 3)
Popper
Falsification
Goal
: of science is
Truth
(
Correspondetivist
) even if its Unobtainable
Means/Methods: Critique, i.e.,
Attempt to Falsify
a
Falsifiable
theory must be:
Testable and
Refutable
Science is Testing Hypotheses
Demarcation
distinguish
Science
from /
Non-Science
Falsificability
draw the line btw them
(
Demarcation criterion
)
Marx and Freud's theories have
too high Explanatory Power
, &
are not Falsifiable (can account for all sort of seemingly contradictory observations)
Induction
(acc. Popper) does
not lead towards T
∀ Inductive thinking should Out of science
substituted by Falsification (wh/ is Deductive)
ex. All swans are white:
should not look for more evidence
should rather try to look for non-white swans
Observation
def.: «
basic statement that is an Interpretation in the light of Theory
»
ex.: swanns are black bc we saw them through a theory (or theoretical load)
<--- Theoretical Load
Qualitative Diff. btw
Confirming
a theory -->
Temporary
Falsifying
-->
Definitive
BUT
to be Definitive, requires Unambiguous Strong Evidence
wh/ is
impossible considering Theory-Ladennes of data
development of Science
Mountain-Climbing metaphor
(T as a Regulative Ideal)
Truth is like the top, we canNot see it, but we need to Believe it's there to keep on Climbing (--> getting Closer to it)
Goal
of science
Revisited
try to Falsify
momentarily
keep those that are Most Corroborated
the Degree of Corroboration =
n
of unsuccessful attempts to Falsify
Degree of Corroboration
though,
is INDUCTIVE!
--> No Rational basis for Science
Cumulative
Reductionist
,
Correspondentivist
,
Realist
Negative
(falsification)
Deductive
,
Non-Inductive
Rational
Problems
:
Science
does
Not work
this way,
Negatively
:
Researchers do not mostly try to Falsify
Falsification
is
Not Definitive
:
it is also
based on Theory-Laden observations
Multiple
Anomalies
are
necessary
for a Crisis
best Theories =
most Corroborated
--> this is
INDUCTIVE
!
Quine-Duhem thesis
: can
Not Test Hypotheses in Isolation
(they're part of a Whole, of a Paradigm w theoretical assumptions, exemplars, etc.)
Kuhn
Normal Science & Paradigms
Science development
Pre-Paradigmatic period
Crucial Experiment
(Paradigmatic exp.)
Normal Science
(Anomalies -->)
Crisis
Revolution
(Special science)
New Normal science
Normal Science
:
not revolutionary
made by a Community of Res.ers
w a Common Paradigm
big Agreement, Knowl. increases fast
Research in Normal Science =
Puzzle-Solving
Paradigm
from gr. "Pattern, Model, smth to Imitate"
ex.: others' res. methods, others' theories
2 main meanings:
Disciplinary Matrix
1 more item...
Exemplars
1 more item...
Crises & Revolution
Anomalies
= problems thta do Not allow themselves to be Disregarded
Anomalies
-->
Crisis
-->
New Approach
-->
Revolution
Revolutions
are
Not Cumulative
,
after a Rev., the discipline
starts Anew
Paradigm Shift
shift of all
:
assumptions
values
methods
exemplars
often not only Incompatible,
But Incommensurable (w old par.)
Incommensurability
1 more item...
Non-Cumulative
Holistic
, >
Instrumentalistic
,
Relativistic
Normal (Positive,
vertical
) and
Special sciences (Alternative,
horizontal
)
Inductive
Irrational
(Non-Rational)
Problems
:
too Relativistic
:
Paradigms as completely incommensurable
World-Views
Incommensurability
Non-Cumulativity
too Constructivistic (T depends too much on the
constructions of a Scientific Community
)
Lecture 4
Phil. of Social Sciences
slightly ≠ Vocabulary
No Clear Distinction
btw:
Natural &
Social
sciences
diff. Subject Matters
, but
Both
Nat. & Soc. sciences are
= Theory-Laden
.
ex.: Quantum physics is the most Observator-dependent
Meaning
Gadamer &
Hermeneutics
from gr. "
Interpret, Understand
"
Text
-interpretation
Hermeneutic Circle, Spiral
the
Parts influence
the
Whole
the
Whole influences the Parts
Understanding
:
is Not Static, but Always
Dynamic
is
∀ Interpretation
, through:
Pre-Assumptions
previous Beliefs and Wolrd-Knowl.
2 more items...
Understanding
of
Action/Behavior
what is Good Interpretation?
Intentionalism
Understanding
=
seeing the world as the Other does
(ppts' POW,
perspective from Within
)
the
Meaning
of an action,
is
what the Actor Intended
by it
how we
Find
out what ppl Mean?
Empathic
interpretation
Trusting
what they
Say
, and what is
Implicit
in it
letting constructions of
Meaning Emerge
Risks
All Actions appear Rational (Post-Rationalizations)
Possible to
Misunderstand
:
Other Ppl's actions
One's Own cctions
Suspicious
interpretation
being
Skeptical
of what they say
Imposing Pre-existing
Theory/Concepts
Problems
:
Not ∀ actions
have an
Intention
actors
can Not know
their Intentions
actors can
Lie to Themselves
(
Post-Rationalization
)
actors
can purposedly Lie to res.ers
Social Perspective
Meaning of an action
,
not
necessaily =
what the Actors Means
by it
Meaning is Not Individual,
but is
Social
it exists within a Cultural Reservoir
Gadamer:
Understanding
is
Collective
Meaning
is
Intersubjective
Individuals do Not have the Monopoly on Meaning
ex.: a text has not a fixed meaning, it's dynamic & varies for diff. ppl
Lecture 5
Relations btw:
Actor
(Individual)
System
(Culture,
Structure, Society)
Perspectives
Atomism
Individuals are Totally Independent units
Holism
Strong
the
Whole Determines
the
Parts
the properties of the Individual
are totally & exclusively Determined by the Whole (Culture)
Social Determinism
the Individual is totally Passive
to Change an Individual,
need to change the whole Culture
Limits
:
canNot explain why there are
big Intra-Cultural Differences
Weak
only a
Part
of the
Individual's behavior
can be explained by
Social Factors
Reciprocal Influence
btw:
Culture/System
Individual
Relativism
#
def.:
Truth, ...
Vary
depending on the
Context
,
are
Relative
to the
System
Meaning, Truth, Knowl. ...
Vary, are Relative to:
Context, Culture, Discourse, Paradigm, Theory, Time, Place, Subject
how to Relate w
Diversity
?
Ethnocentrism:
we in Our Culture are Right
Rationalism
:
Thinking will give Universally Shared Truth for Evrbd
Relativism
All Perspectives are
True Within
their
own Context
ex. Cultural Relativism in Anthropology
Ex.:
Watching the
sun rise
:
T. Brache: geocentrist
J. Kepler: eliocentrist
Both are right within their own systems
Limits:
cultures are
Not completely Separated Systems
it's
Self-contradicotry
: "evrtng is Relative", except this
Translation
should be Impossible