Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

PHIL 220 > PHIL220 Midterm > Flashcards

PHIL220 Midterm Flashcards

1
Q

B: View on Science

A
  • socially reorganize science
  • more appropriate set of values are most influential
  • help to achieve more objective results
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

B:Key Idea

A
  • Epistemological practices (e.g. evidence gathering) that are more objectively good than others
  • essential for addressing moral concerns
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

B: Science Wars

A
  • battle between subjective and objective ways of science
  • extreme views are hopeless
  • Brown says there needs to be middle ground
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

B: Norm of Total Evidence

A

when deciding to believe/promote hypothesis:

  • consider all relevant evidence
  • don’t suppress any evidence
  • don’t decide soeley on partial evidence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

B: Norm of Anecdotal Evidence

A

when deciding to follow up a challenge to your hypothesis:

  • properly consider anecdotal evidence
  • attend to preliminary results, not just large scale results
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

B: Norm of Testing Rivals

A

when deciding to believe/promote hypothesis:

-test against any promising rivals beforehand

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

B: Norm of Appropriate Study Subjects

A

when enrolling subjects to test hypothesis:

  • ensure subjects chosen are relevant to hypothesis
  • e.g. age specific, sex specific etc.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Logical Positivism (General)

A
  • c.1900 - 1950
  • attempt to defend possibility of objective evidence
  • more generally, objectivity of science
  • Ernst Mach (inspiration)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

LP: Vienna Circle

A
  • 1907-1912
  • contained mathematicians, social scientists, physicists
  • disgusted by racism, bigotry, nationalism
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

LP View on Philosophy

A

found current (1900s) philosophy to be

  • pretentious
  • obscure
  • dogmatic
  • politically harmful
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Dogmatism

A
  • catholic church dark ages of severe oppression
  • scientific revolution aided
  • dogmatism harms (through obscurity and pretension) leads people to believe things that would harm greater good
  • e.g. intolerance for different ethnicity
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

LP were Against

A
  • nationalism
  • intolerance
  • fascism
  • violence
  • dogma
  • obscurity
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

LP were For

A
  • Diversity
  • Tolerance
  • Peace
  • Clarity
  • Democratic social rule
  • Open critique and dialogue
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

LP Critical Aspects

A
  • rejects all speculative philosophy
  • e.g. metaphysics, religion
  • seems to lack literal meaning
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

LP Positive Aspects

A
  • promotes empiricists view of knowledge
  • science is supreme
  • philosophy is only to clarify logic for justification in science
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

LP Attacked Speculative Philosophy

A
  • existence of god
  • souls
  • objects
  • transcendent spirit
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Logical Empiricism

A
  • salvaged scientific objectivity (from LP)
  • emerged 1930s/1940s as LP faded
  • Carl Hempel helped turn LP to LE
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Empiricism

A

experience is necessary for having knowledge

-(not sufficient)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

LE Questions

A

How CAN science work?

How SHOULD science work?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

LE Theories

A

can and should posit ONLY observable entities

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

LE Evidence & Justification

A
  • can and should ONLY involve logic and observations

- be objective

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Strict forms of Empiricism

A
  • privileges special kind of experience
  • directly perceived sense data = perceptions
  • you only know what you directly sense
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Recent Empiricists

A
  • still require experience for knowledge
  • don’t limit what we know to direct perceptions
  • can’t know non-observable
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Logical Empiricists

A
  • agnostic -> silent about whether unobservables exist or we can know they do
  • can talk about, only out of utility
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Observations

A

-sensations of observable entities, relations, processes

26
Q

Logic

A

-sometimes deductive, mostly non-deductive

27
Q

Data Puritan (4 Part Method)

A
  1. Data gathering
  2. Data Organization
  3. Induction to Generalization
  4. Deduction to prediction
28
Q

Hempel’s Method for Data

A
  1. Selective Data Gathering
  2. Selective Data Organization
  3. Induction to Generalization
  4. Deduction to Prediction
29
Q

Justification & Discovery

A
  • justification is independent of discovery

- aim to discover, and use rules

30
Q

System of Inductive Logic

A
  • each system tells you how strong/weak some data serves as evidence for a conclusion
  • represent scores as epistemic probability
  • can all assign strength differently
31
Q

Hume’s Skeptical Conclusion

A

It is Impossible to rationally justify inductive reasoning

32
Q

Hume’s conclusion wasn’t

A
  • that induction, science, and experience can’t prove a claim to be true
  • about rational justification for ACTING based on inductive reasoning
33
Q

Hume’s Presumed Criterion

A

any SIL if justified if:

  1. Frequency
  2. Comparative
34
Q

Hume’s Frequency Criterion

A

-inductive arguments that SIL implies are strong provide true conclusions, from true premises, MOST of the time

35
Q

Hume’s Comparative Criterion

A

-the inductive arguments that SIL consider strong, that prove conclusions to be true from the true premises more often than those of weaker SIL strength

36
Q

demonstrative (deductive)

A
  • offers guarantees
  • not possible for inductive reasoning
  • future inductive reasoning could fail
37
Q

moral (inductive)

A
  • circular argument

- presuppose justification not support it

38
Q

Principle of Uniformity of Nature

A

from causes which appear similar we expect similar effects

39
Q

For best SIL, proceed as IF:

A

A. Historical Texts- most successful past scientific arguments
B. Intuitive tests - uncover overlooked implications of rules until intuition can tell which is right or not

40
Q

RP: Theory of Inductive Support

A

-develop theory that accurately and intuitively tells us when observations support/confirm a generalization

41
Q

RP: Theory of Projection

A

-formal theory that accurately and intuitively tells us how to infer properties of the NEXT case from properties of previous cases

42
Q

Raven’s Paradox

A
  • All F’s are G

- Empiricists want generalizations

43
Q

RP: Principles of Confirmation

A

-Raven’s paradox show’s two principles that both can’t be correct

44
Q

RP: First Confirmation

A

if you observe an F that is G, then it supports hypothesis that all Fs are G

45
Q

RP: Second Confirmation

A

if you randomly observe something that seems unrelated to Fs and Gs then this does not support the hypothesis that all Fs are G

46
Q

Logical Equivalence

A

same truth conditions

-

47
Q

I.J. Good’s Choice

A
  • showed whatever an observation confirms hypothesis isn’t always objective
  • depends on what is known/believed by the subjects
48
Q

Godfrey-Smith’s idea

A
  • order that you gather reasonable beliefs through time influences if it is evidence
  • hypothesis confirmed when observation had potential to refute the hypothesis
49
Q

Goodman’s New Riddle: Main Goal

A
  • no formal theory of confirmation

- inductive arguments can’t just rely on form

50
Q

Goodman’s Language Implication

A

evidence strength may depend on language

51
Q

GNR: Good Induction

A
  • terms that have history of normal use in community

- words of natural kind

52
Q

Projectability Goodman

A
  • need rules

- for any prediction, regularity can be found that licenses such prediction

53
Q

Goodman’s Third Variable Thesis

A
  • knowing form of argument isn’t enough to support generalization
  • even form + truth of content isn’t enough
  • need third variable, that helps determine if arguments are good
54
Q

Projectible Properties Hypothesis

A
  • TYPE of argument content

- whether properties are projectible or not

55
Q

Relative Risk Thesis

A
  • evidential strength not an objective matter

- relative to the language of subjects who give/interpret evidence

56
Q

Popper’s Response to Inductive Logic

A

-abandon it

57
Q

Demarcation Problem

A
  • finding criterion to distinguish science from pseudo science
  • Popper looked at problem in terms of hypotheses
58
Q

Popper’s Answer to Demarcation

A
  • fasifiability
  • any hypothesis, H, is scientific iff:
  • there is some possible observation that could deductively refute it as false
59
Q

Popper: Relation to Confirmation and Testing

A
  • should ONLY try to deductively refute

- many scientists operate this way

60
Q

Conjecture and Refutation (Popper)

A
  • response to how science should work
  • creative, imaginative, idea with RISK
  • tough minded, no nonsense
61
Q

Problems with Popper

A
  • Science cannot rationally accept any hypotheses
  • too exclusive- some hypotheses are probabilistic
  • too exclusive! - due to holism about testing
  • too inclusive - non-scientific hypotheses can satisfy falsifiability criterion

PHIL 220 (3 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions