Historical and Philosophical Foundations of Psychology Flashcards
(58 cards)
What were Francis Bacon’s (1561-1626) 4 ‘idols’?
- Idols of the Tribe (Idola Tribus)
These biases stem from human nature itself—the natural tendencies and limitations of human perception and reasoning.
They arise because human beings tend to see patterns where none exist, prefer simplicity over complexity, and are influenced by emotions.
Example: Seeing order in random events (e.g., superstitions, thinking a “lucky” shirt helped win a game). - Idols of the Cave (Idola Specus)
These biases come from individual experiences, upbringing, education, and personal disposition.
Each person is shaped by their unique environment and interprets the world differently based on their background.
Example: A scientist trained in one school of thought might reject new evidence because it contradicts their previous beliefs. - Idols of the Marketplace (Idola Fori)
These biases come from language and communication, where words can be misleading and create confusion.
People often use vague, imprecise, or emotionally charged language that distorts the understanding of reality.
Example: Political slogans or abstract philosophical terms that sound profound but lack clear meaning. - Idols of the Theatre (Idola Theatri)
These biases arise from blind acceptance of traditional philosophies, dogmas, or established systems of thought.
Bacon criticized old philosophical traditions (like Aristotelian logic and medieval scholasticism) for relying too much on authority and abstract reasoning instead of empirical evidence.
Example: Believing an outdated scientific theory simply because it has been accepted for centuries.
Before Bacon, scientific inquiry was largely based on ________ _______—starting with general assumptions and reasoning down to specific conclusions. Bacon rejected this approach, arguing instead for _______ _______.
Before Bacon, scientific inquiry was largely based on Aristotelian deduction—starting with general assumptions and reasoning down to specific conclusions. Bacon rejected this approach, arguing instead for inductive reasoning.
What is the Baconian method?
- Careful data collection (not relying on intuition or assumptions).
- Experiments to test hypotheses (rather than just reasoning from first principles).
- Gradual, step-by-step accumulation of knowledge (not rushing to conclusions).
Logical Positivism:
Two types of meaningful statement
(verification principle)
- Logical truths (e.g. true by definition)- don’t give any factual information
- Observational statements
Key ideas of logical positivism
(A.J. Ayer, 1910-1989)
Verification Principle – A statement is meaningful if it is:
Analytic (true by definition, e.g., “All bachelors are unmarried”).
Empirically Verifiable (confirmed by experience, e.g., “Water boils at 100°C at sea level”).
Rejection of Metaphysics – Statements about God, the soul, morality, and aesthetics are meaningless, as they cannot be tested or logically proven.
Demarcation of Sense vs. Nonsense – Separates scientific statements (meaningful) from metaphysical statements (nonsense).
Inspired by The Vienna Circle – A group of philosophers in the 1920s who sought to make philosophy as rigorous as science.
Criticisms of logical positivism
Self-refuting – The Verification Principle itself cannot be empirically verified, making it meaningless by its own rules!
Too strict – Some scientific theories (e.g., string theory) are not directly observable but are still useful.
Ignores Ethics & Aesthetics – Dismissing moral and artistic judgments as “nonsense” overlooks their significance in human life.
Hume (1711-1776) argued that inductive reasoning has no rational justification.
🔹 The core problem:
🔹the consequences:
Problem:
Premise: We assume that the future will resemble the past.
Question: How do we justify this assumption?
Consequences:
🔹 Science relies on induction—but induction cannot be rationally justified!
🔹 Everyday life depends on assumptions about cause and effect—but what if these assumptions are unreliable?
Responses to Hume’s ‘problem’:
🔹 Kant (1724-1804)
🔹 Popper (1902-1994)
🔹 Pragmatist
🔹 Kant’s Response:
Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) argued that the human mind imposes order on experience—cause and effect is a built-in mental structure, not something we discover.
🔹 Karl Popper’s Falsificationism:
Popper (1902–1994) accepted Hume’s challenge but argued that science does not actually use induction.
Instead, science falsifies theories: We cannot prove them true, but we can prove them false.
Example: “All swans are white.”
Seeing 100 white swans does not prove this true.
But one black swan disproves the claim.
🔹 Pragmatist View:
Some argue that induction works, and that’s good enough.
Even if it cannot be proven logically, science and everyday life function because induction is reliable in practice.
Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996) challenged the traditional view that science progresses linearly through gradual accumulation of knowledge (as in Logical Positivism). Instead, he argued that:
- Science progresses through “paradigm shifts”—radical changes in the fundamental framework used to understand the world.
- These paradigm shifts are revolutionary, not evolutionary.
Paradigm definition:
A paradigm is the overarching framework of theories, methods, and assumptions shared by a scientific community. It dictates what questions scientists ask, how they interpret data, and what counts as valid knowledge.
🔹 Kuhn’s Cycle of Science:
- Normal Science: Scientists work within a paradigm, solving problems (puzzles) it defines.
- Anomalies Appear: Some phenomena don’t fit the paradigm. At first, these are ignored or explained away.
- Crisis: Accumulating anomalies shake confidence in the existing paradigm.
- Scientific Revolution: A new paradigm emerges that better explains the anomalies.
- New Normal Science: The new paradigm is adopted, and science continues until new anomalies appear.
Kuhn emphasized that science is a human activity—scientists are influenced by social, cultural, and psychological factors, not just evidence.
🔹 Key Points:
- Commitment to Paradigms: Scientists are deeply invested in the current paradigm. It shapes their training and worldview.
- Resistance to Change: Scientists often resist new paradigms because they challenge long-held beliefs and require rethinking foundational assumptions.
- Scientific Revolutions Are Political: The adoption of a new paradigm is not purely rational—it involves debate, persuasion, and generational shifts.
💡 Example:
When Copernicus proposed the heliocentric model (Earth orbits the Sun), it faced resistance because it contradicted the geocentric paradigm supported by religious and social norms.
What was Popper’s ‘Myth of the Framework’?
Karl Popper, in contrast to Kuhn, argued that frameworks (or paradigms) are not incommensurable and that science progresses by critical testing and falsification of theories.
The “myth of the framework” is Popper’s critique of Kuhn’s idea that paradigms cannot be compared.
Popper believed that scientists from different frameworks can critically debate and test each other’s theories, even if their assumptions differ.
Imre Lakatos (1922-1974) on Falsificationism
Lakatos modified Popper’s falsificationism, arguing that science does not reject theories immediately upon falsification but through the competition of research programmes.
📍 Key Points:
Falsification is too simplistic – Scientists don’t abandon a theory just because anomalies arise.
Hard Core & Protective Belt – The hard core of a research programme is protected, while auxiliary hypotheses in the protective belt are adjusted.
Progressive vs. Degenerative Programmes – Science progresses when research programmes make novel, testable predictions and solve new problems.
Pseudoscience vs. Science – A theory isn’t scientific just because it’s falsifiable; it must be part of a progressive research programme.
Imre Lakatos on Kuhn
Lakatos disagreed with Kuhn’s idea of paradigms being incommensurable and argued that scientific progress is not a series of irrational revolutions but a rational competition between research programmes.
📍 Key Points:
Rejects Kuhn’s “Paradigm Shifts” – Scientific revolutions aren’t sudden, irrational shifts but structured progress where new research programmes rationally outperform older ones.
Scientific Progress is Not Subjective – Unlike Kuhn’s view that paradigms are accepted due to sociological factors, Lakatos believed rational criteria (e.g., problem-solving ability) determine success.
Research Programmes Compete, Not Paradigms – Instead of one paradigm replacing another in a revolution, multiple research programmes compete until one proves progressive while the other degenerates.
Bridges Kuhn & Popper – Lakatos retained Popper’s rational falsificationism while acknowledging Kuhn’s insight that science doesn’t discard theories immediately.
Feyerabend’s Key Ideas
Core Idea: “Anything goes!” Feyerabend rejected the idea of universal scientific methods and argued that science progresses through creativity, rule-breaking, and pluralism.
📍 Key Points:
Epistemological Anarchism – No universal method of science; all approaches should be considered.
Critique of Scientific Dogmatism – Science should not be treated as the only valid way of knowing the world.
Science vs. Other Knowledge Systems – Religion, mythology, and traditional knowledge should be allowed to compete with scientific frameworks.
Pluralism Fuels Progress – Science benefits from diverse and competing ideas, even those that seem unscientific.
Historical Rule-Breaking – Major breakthroughs often violated accepted methods (e.g., Galileo’s heliocentrism).
What were Lakatos’ and Feyerabend’s critiques of one another?
🔹 Lakatos’ Critique of Feyerabend:
Believed Feyerabend’s radical pluralism led to epistemological chaos where no standards exist.
Argued that without rational progress, science would be indistinguishable from mythology or superstition.
🔹 Feyerabend’s Critique of Lakatos:
Thought Lakatos’ research programmes were still too restrictive and ignored the messy reality of scientific discovery.
Argued that “rationality” is just another form of dogma imposed by philosophers.
Locke’s method is based on empiricism, the idea that all knowledge comes from experience, not innate ideas or pure reason.
📖 Key Principles of Locke’s Method:
1️⃣ Empirical Observation Over Innate Ideas
The mind is a blank slate (tabula rasa) at birth—all knowledge comes from experience.
Rejects Descartes’ rationalism, which claimed humans have innate ideas (e.g., knowledge of God or logic).
Example: A child learns what “red” is only by seeing red objects, not through innate understanding.
2️⃣ The Two Sources of Knowledge
Sensation (external experience): Knowledge from our five senses (e.g., heat, color, sound).
Reflection (internal experience): Knowledge from our mind’s own activities (e.g., thinking, reasoning).
3️⃣ Simple and Complex Ideas
Simple Ideas: Basic elements of knowledge from experience (e.g., the feeling of heat, the color blue).
Complex Ideas: Formed by combining simple ideas through reasoning (e.g., the concept of “justice” or “government”).
4️⃣ Empirical Testing of Ideas
Knowledge should be tested and refined through experience and experimentation.
Influenced scientific thinkers like Isaac Newton by emphasizing systematic observation over speculation.
5️⃣ Limits of Human Understanding
The mind is not omniscient—some questions (e.g., the nature of the soul) may be beyond human comprehension.
Science and philosophy should focus on practical, observable matters rather than abstract speculation.
Impact of Locke’s Method:
-philosophy
-science
-politics
📖 Impact on Philosophy:
✅ Foundation of empiricism → Influenced later thinkers like David Hume and John Stuart Mill.
✅ Inspired Kant’s critique, leading to the debate between empiricism and rationalism.
🔬 Impact on Science:
✅ Encouraged experimental methods (influencing Newton, Boyle, and Bacon).
✅ Laid groundwork for psychology and cognitive science (e.g., theories of perception and learning).
🏛️ Impact on Politics:
✅ Inspired liberal democracy and constitutional government.
✅ His ideas shaped the U.S. Constitution and Enlightenment political thought.
what was Locke’s definition of an idea
“Whatsoever the Mind perceives in itself, or is the immediate object of Perception, Thought, or Understanding, that I call Idea.”
🔹 What This Means:
An idea is anything the mind is aware of—whether from external perception (sensory experience) or internal thought (reflection).
Ideas are the basic units of thought and form the foundation of all knowledge.
What did Locke say about words?
“Words, in their primary or immediate signification, stand for nothing but the ideas in the mind of him that uses them.”
🔹 What This Means:
Words are merely labels for the ideas we already have in our mind.
The idea of red exists in perception, even if a person has no word for it.
Language is not necessary for perception, only for communication.
Locke’s definition of knowledge:
“Knowledge then seems to me to be nothing but the perception of the connection and agreement, or disagreement and repugnancy, of any of our ideas.” (Essay Concerning Human Understanding, IV.i.2)
🔹 What This Means:
Knowledge is not just having ideas—it is perceiving the relationship between ideas.
The act of linking perception (“red”) to a word (“red”) is an association, but not yet knowledge in Locke’s strict sense.
Knowledge happens when we recognize how ideas relate to each other with certainty.
What did David Hume (1711-1776) say about ‘causality’?
🔹 Hume was deeply skeptical about the concept of causality—he argued that we never actually perceive cause and effect directly, but only experience constant conjunction (one event regularly following another).
What was Hume’s problem of induction?
🧠 Core Idea: We cannot rationally prove that past experiences predict future outcomes—causality is just a habit of the mind.
📖 Hume’s Question:
“What reason do we have, upon supposition that the future resembles the past, to draw any inference from past experience?”
🔹 Key Points:
✅ Science assumes past patterns will continue (e.g., the sun will rise tomorrow).
✅ Hume argued this is logically unprovable—we only expect it because we are used to it.
✅ Causality is not directly observed, only a habit of thought.
🚀 Conclusion: The belief that the future will resemble the past is not based on reason but on psychological expectation.
