Ladyman - Understanding
Philosophy of Science

Ch. 1 Induction & Inductivism

Rationalism

Deduction

  • is Truth-Preserving
  • deductive Conclusions are Not Informative
    (do not say smth new, smth that was not already implied in the premises)

Empiricism

Knowl. comes from Experience

  • Experiments
  • Observations
  • Testing data, etc.

Induction

Deductively Invalid, but allegedly Good Arguments

Exp. differ from Obs. bc:

  • can Control and Manipulate Var.s
  • designed w 'Testing a theory' already in mind

Bacon's def.: generalize from a Collection of Particular instances to a General Conclusion

Naive Ind.

  • Observation is Not Theory-Laden
  • Generalization from many obs. to all elements

Validity has to do:

  • not w the T/F of Premises/Conclusions, But:
  • w the Relation btw them

Ch. 2 The problem w Induction and
other problems w Inductivism

distinction btw

Relation of Ideas:

  • Analytic, Non-Informative, true a priori
    ex. all bachelors are unmarried, a horse is an animal

Matters of Fact:

  • Synthetic, Informative, depend on Experience
    ex. all swans are white, hot metal expands

Hume

  • All Reasoning bt the Future is based on Cause-Effect
  • our Knowl. bt Cause-Effects based on Experience
  • we canNot Directly Observe Cause-Effect
    (just the conjunction/space-time contiguity/predecession)

the apparent Uniformity of Nature 'until now' is
Not a rational base for our Inductive knowl.

Sum Up

  • in Ind. reasoning, our Conclusions depend on Past Experiences
  • we canNot Demonstrate the Unformity of Nature
  • & observing All the Instances is itself an Inductive process
    so they may Always turn out to be Wrong

Ch. 3 Falsificationism

why a Theory of the Scientific Method?

  • to Know whether a sc. knowl. is Justified & its Limits
  • to Decide if a theory is Scientific or/ Not

Problem w Marx & Freud's theories,
compared w Einstein

M. & F.:

  • too High Explanatory Power
  • do Not make Precise Predictions
  • (sometimes even) foreclose the possibility of criticism

E.:

  • risky Precise Prediction that could be Refuted

it's Not much bt Confirmation, but
bt Falsification!

Popper's Solution to
the Problem of Induction

Theories must be Refutable, Falsifiable,
otherwise: Not Scientific

Science made up by Conjectures
that scientist need to try to Refute

Fallibilism:

  • All Knowl. is Provisional

Not Scientific ≠ w/out Value

we still need Metaphysics
to create the Conjectures

Contexts of Discovery &
of Justification

Discovery
(Conceving a theory)

Generation of Scientific Theories is Not Mechanical, but
a Creative activity

Justification
(Testing a th.)

(acc. to Popper) this only
is the field of Phil. of Science

undertaking the logical analysis
of the testing of scientific theories

Hypothetico-Deductivism:

  • start w a Theory/Hypothesis
  • Deduce Consequences from it
  • Test these consequences through Experiment

Problems:

Duhem

canNot Deduce what will be Observed
from a Single Hypothesis (in Isolation)

Hypotheses need always be
Conjoined w Other Assumptions

Quine

there is No completely Conclusive Refutation
of a theory by an Experiment (p. 80)

it requires Intersubjective Agreements amg Scientists on:

  • what is being tested
  • the experimental procedures and techniques involved in the exp., etc.

as Falsification is Never Completely Conclusive,
--> No Qualitative Difference btw Falsification and/ Confirmation

Fundamental Attempt

Explain the Scientific Method
w/out using any Inductive inference

some legitimate parts of science
are Not Falsifiable

like: any statement bt the probability of a single event

some Scientific Principles (like. II law of thermodynamics) are Not Falsifiable

Popper caNot account for
our Expectations bt the Future

Corroboration

Corroborated theories are those that we
tried to Falsify many times and Failed

scientists sometimes Ignore Falsification

Legacy

Features of Good Science:

  • Critical Attitude to received wisdom
  • insistence on Empirical Content that is
    • Precise and Wide in scope
  • use of Creative Thinking
    to solve problems w bold conjectures

canNot explain the Scientific Method and the Justification of sc. knowl. w/out Induction

Science is bt:

  • Confirmation. as well as
  • Falsification

Answer:

  • Sophisticated Inductivism (--> Hypotheitico-Deductivism)

Ch. 4 Revolutions & Rationality

Conceptions of Science:

  • Popper:
    • Non-Inductive
    • Rational
  • Kuhn
    • Inductive
    • Non-Rational

the Received View of Science

  • Cumulative
  • Unified
    • single set of fundamental methods for all sciences
    • Reductionism: all are reducible to physics
  • Sharp Distinction btw Scientific and Non-scientific theories
  • scientific Terms have Fixed and precise Meanings

Kuhn

It is much More Complicated,
1962 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

Paradigms

Disciplinary Matrix

Exemplars

  • set of Asnwers to Fundamental Qq learned by Scientists through Education that prepares them for Res.
  • provide the Framework within wh/ Science operates

More or Less Explicit

Implicit:

  • shared Values
  • Practical Skills and Methods

Paradigmatic Examples

Successful parts of science that is Learned, and
provide a Model for future dev. of the subject

mostly contained in Textbooks

Ex.:

  • world as a giant clock machine
  • some standard mathematical techniques applied to physical systems, etc.

Normal Science

that conducted Within an Established Paradigm

Metaphor of Puzzle-Solving, in wh/ the Rules:

  • are quite Strict and
  • Determined by the Paradigm

Anomalies --> Crisis --> Revolution (Paradigm Shift)

need Multiple Anomalies
before a Crisis

New Paradigm is adopted

a Revolution or Paradigm Shift has occurred

ex. Phlogiston

the scientific Change is Not Piecemeal,
but Holistic

Scientific Change must include Social Forces

science must be Understood
in its Social and Historical Context

  • res.ers' Values are important
  • Not Commitment to Theories (Popper), but Commitment to the Paradigm

No Clear Distinction btw:

  • Observations (facts, experiments)
  • Theory

Hanson's Thesis

Theory-Laden Nature of Observation

Observations are Influenced by:

  • our Assumptions, Prior Knowl., prior Beliefs, etc.

Incommensurability

of Paradigms, &
of Theories within diff. paradigms

Paradigm change like
a Gestalt Switch (Holistic)

ppl. w diff. par.s do Not even Agree
on what they Observe

Meaning incommensurability

Scientific Terms get their Meaning from their Position
in the Structure of a Whole Theory

when Paradigms Change,
the World Changes w them

5 core Values Common to All Paradigms.
A Theory should be:

  • Empirically Accurate within its domain
  • Consistent w Other accepted theories
  • Wide in scope - not just accomodate the facts it was designed to explain
  • Fruitful in the sense of providing a Framework for ongoing research

Ladyman cover