L4 - Philosophy of science, p.2 Flashcards
(75 cards)
1
Q
Lecture’s overview
A
- what are norms worth if they fail to describe scientific practice?
~ paradigms
~ episemological anarchism
~ sophisticated falsificationsim - more recent philosphy of science
~ standpoint theory and values in science
~ hidden methodological principles in psychology
~ theory building and explanation
2
Q
According to Popper, how do we progress in science?
A
- theories cannot be confirmed, only falsified
- we should strive to falsify as many theories as possible, to be left only with the ones that cannot be falsified
3
Q
what is a problem with hard falsificationism?
A
! hard falsificationism is not possible !
- when we test a prediction we test the theory together with all sorts of background assumptions, so we can’t be sure that the theory should be falsified
- researchers first would criticize background assumptions, before taking into consideration the fact that the theory might be wrong
4
Q
- how can Popper’s theory of falsificationism be described?
- why is it unreasonable?
A
- “prescriptive” (it’s about a rule that should be followed)
~ as a scientist, you have to do your best to falsify your own theory
~ this is similar to having bankers responsible for reducing their own bonuses → it doesn’t work! Too high of an expectation to put on scientists
5
Q
Popper considers his theory as normative. What is the problem with that?
A
- normative theory: describes a rule (norm) that people (scientists) should follow
- it still should describe examples of what we consider “scientific successes”
~ if there’s no scientist following these rules, this would make Popper’s theory a bad description of science
→ therefore, we ask whether falsificationsim is historically accurate
6
Q
- Who is Thomas Kuhn?
> How is he related to Popper?
A
- historian, 1922-1996
- he wants to find in science a set of rules that is typically used throughout, and that can count as rules that describe science
! he does not find such set of rules to describe science → coins paradigms
~ he is the first scientist analysing the theory of falsificationism, and whether it really works
7
Q
- what is Thomas Kuhn known for?
- what is his view on positivism?
A
- paradigm shifts
- “theories often break with their predecessors” → against positivism
- “science is not as the logical positivists claim”
8
Q
what are Kuhn’s main points?
A
- agreed with Popper about the priority of theory over observation
- all observations and theoretical concepts depended on the language of the adopted theory
- emphasized the pressure to keep individual scientists within the confines of the prevailing research tradition (researchers must adhere to conventions)
9
Q
what is a Paradigm?
A
- in different times, people are trained in a certain tradition, and this tradition forms a world view on how to do things
- this all-encompassing world view is a paradigm
~ paradigms shift through time, there is no fixed set of rules that scientists should follow
10
Q
how does a paradigm shift happens?
A
- when you are in a paradigm, you work and progress in science (= puzzle solving)
- at some points you will start to encounter little things (anomalies) that contrast a bit the paradigm
- when you encounter many anomalies, that leads to a crisis
- only through a scientific revolution, we reach a sudden shift in paradigm
! paradigms shift very gradually !
~ even meanings of words can change with a paradigm shift
~ e.g. from Newton to Einstein, the meaning of “time” changed (became relative)
11
Q
- Does science progress gradually?
- how did that change from positivism?
A
! debatable
- we do have sudden paradigm shifts brought upon by revolutions
- we do gradually build up knowledge within the paradigm, but at some point something can happen which can lead the whole world view to change (the shift)
- therefore, is it really a continuum or do we start from scratch every time the paradigm changes? → we would have a new reference point
~ in positivism, it was clearly gradual because through falsification, we can add new knowledge onto prior knowledge
12
Q
the stages of science, according to Kuhn
(+ explanation and example)
A
- instead of comulative progress, Kuhn proposes different stages of science:
-
Pre-science
~ there is no general way of doing things yet -
Normal science (I)
~ we start building rules and training new scientists with those rules (puzzle-solving) -
Anomalies and crisis
~ (e.g.) Newton couldn’t explain the orbit of Mercury, +… -
Revolution
~ (e.g.) relativity theory was proposed → led to new rule -
Normal science (II)
~ new things can be explained, and new rules are formed
13
Q
what is Puzzle-solving?
A
- term used by Kuhn to indicate normal science
→ this is because researchers work on familiar topics using well-known techniques and practices - they have confidence that they will be able to solve the puzzles with the available tools
14
Q
what does a paradigm determine?
A
- what is to be observed and scrutinised
- which questions should be asked
- how the questions are to be structured
- how the results of scientific investigarions should be interpreted
15
Q
so, does Kuhn believe in progress over paradigms?
A
- not entirely clear (not guaranteed by the scientific method)
- if reference point / standard changes all the time, can we really talk about progress?
~ his book, “the structure of scientific revolutions”, is the single most widely cited book in social sciences
~ now the term “paradigm” is very widely used, in all fields
16
Q
What new school emerges through Kuhn?
A
- Relativism
~ we can’t evaluate science, or its progress, because it is relative only to that paradigm
~ the terms change, and so does their meaning in theories
→ those theories are not even about the same thing
→ in another paradigm you see another world
17
Q
To explain relativism, how would Aristotle vs Galileo see a pendolum?
A
- Pendolums did not exist at the time of Aristotle, so he would focus on the motion of such object
~ e.g. there is an object that is prevented from falling by a string - at the time they also believed that heavy bodies were moved from a higher position to a state of natural rest, a lower one.
- Galileo instead would describe the function, as pendolums existed in his time and he knew what they were used for
18
Q
what stage is psychology in, now?
A
- in psychology it is a bit trickier to come up with all-encompassing world views such Kuhn described
- the paradigms in psychology are more local and mostly methodological
~ e.g. behaviorism could be considered a paradigm
~ now, some say that we are in a neurological paradigm, because we focus mostly on the brain
19
Q
Evidence Based Medicine as a current paradigm
- why?
A
- Miriam Solomon argues that Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) can be seen as a traditional Kuhnian paradigm
~ randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta analysis
~ it is a social movement with associated institutions, textbooks, courses and journals
~ it is a general philosophy of medicine, defining both the questions of interest and what counts as appropriate evidence
~ it’s driven by successful exemplars (“concrete puzzle solutions”); they provide examples that can replace explicit rules
→ you can learn by example and training
! EBM is very important, but it might work better in combination with other methods that focus on other things
20
Q
Epistemological Anarchism
- who was the first person?
A
- Feyerabend starts with physics and goes into history of science (Vienna)
- Cooper becomes his mentor, and Feyerabend is at first very positivist
- changes doctrine → “we should get rid of all rules”
21
Q
what is Feyerabend known for?
- what were his main arguments?
A
~ writes book “Against Method”
- he denies the existence of methodological guidelines ensuring progress in science
- it is essential for scientific process that everything is permitted
~ “you need a toolbox full of different kinds of tools. Not only a hammer and pins and nothing else”
- sudden discoveries can justify something that was already assumed (e.g. tower argument)
22
Q
Feyerabend’s Tower argument
A
- in the past, when the eliocentric model of the universe was proposed, evidence against it was that if you throw a stone from a tower, it falls straight down and not away as it would happen if the earth was really moving
- actually, later we found other explanations for the these observations, namely that the stone falls straight down because the earth, tower and air move together
~ Feyerabend argues that Galileo was a great scientist because he was stubborn, he wanted to go against complaints and went forward with his research despite the evidence against it at the time
23
Q
how was Feyerabend described?
A
- look at picture 1
(you don’t need to know it, but it’s a nice text that will help you remember what Feyerabend thought and brought forward in the scientific field)
24
Q
Sophisticated Falsificationism
- who started it?
A
- Lakatos
~ student of Popper
~ tries to save the rationality of science from Kuhn’s relativism and Feyerabend’s anarchism
25
what does Lakatos say about Popper's falsificationism?
- what did that lead to?
"from a logical point of view, it is quite possible to play the game of science according to Popper's rules... The only problem is that it has never happened in this way"
→ Lakatos combines: normative elements of Popper's philosophy + descriptive elements of Kuhn's philosophy
→ falsification (normative theory) + actual science (descriptive theory)
26
What is sophisticated falsificationism?
- more nuanced falsificationism
- direct falsification is very rare:
~ scientists do not usually give up their theories so easily, but will switch when they have a better theory
- there is still a role for falsification (e.g. demarcation), but it is not a descriptive principle
27
Lakatos' research programmes
- what are the characteristics?
- they can exist close to each other
- you can move from one program to the other
28
what are the components of Laktos' reserarch programmes?
(+ their characteristics)
- core (cannot be changed)
- beliefs (associated to each research program)
- positive heuristics (helps program move forward)
~ when testing a theory, if something doesn't go right with the predictions, we can change something in the beliefs around the core
- negative heuristic (you can't revise the core)
~ research program might slow down, and people might be convinced to move to another research program
(see picture 2)
29
How can Lakatos' research programmes be applied to the concept of general intelligence (g)?
- core: g exists
~ empirical tests show that the correlation matrix between cognitive tasks in IQ test is not unidimensional
- negative heuristic: we do not reject g
- positive heuristic: we change the model a bit and make it hierarchical (g is not the direct cause of IQ scores, but there are lower-order factors that mediate these effects)
30
What are the two possible types of research programmes?
- introduced by Lakatos
- Progressive
- Degenerative
31
what is a Progressive research program?
- growth, new techniques & more facts
- they are "doing well", they get grants for research, used widely, but might slow down if predictions start not to hold up anymore
- allows researchers to make new, unexpected predictions that can be tested empirically
- it replaces the degenerative paradigm during a paradigm shift
32
what is a Degenerative research program?
- shrinkage, no new techniques and no increase in facts
- no founds, no new discoveries
- does not allow researchers to make new predictions
- requires an increasing number of ad hoc modifications to account for the empirical findings
33
what is the normative component of Lakatos' research programmes?
a rational scientist should stick with a progressive programe but abandon a degenerative programme
34
Examples of scientific revolutions
- geocentrism replaced by heliocentrism (Copernicus)
- replacement of circular orbits with ellipsoid orbits (Kepler)
35
how do we return to normal science?
- there is pressure by the research community to stay within the limits of the shared paradigm
- students are thought the new ways as the unquestionable and correct ones
- everything that happened before is summarized as "well-meant" but naïve
36
what are the two main points of criticism towards Kuhn's paradigm theory?
- paradigms are ever changing
- it's unclear whether a revolution meant progress or simply a change of paradigm
> this rekindled the controversy between realism and idealism
37
Kuhn's paradigms vs positivism
- positivism: scinece is always right, and should therefore be the motor of all progress
- Kuhn: scientific disciplines depend on paradigms, and all paradigms have known major padarigm shifts
38
Refreshment - what are realism and idealism?
- Realism: human knowledge tries to reveal real things in the world
> truth is the correspondence between the knowledge and the real world
- Idealism: human knowledge is a construction of the mind and does not necessarily correspond to an outside world
> truth depends on the coherence with teh rest of the knowledge of the social group
39
Postmodernism
- questioning of the special status of science
- seeing the scientific explanations as stories told by a particular group of scientists
- sceptical attitude towards any principles and assumptions that underpinned modernity
40
- What was the postmodernist view on Popper and Kuhn?
- what is a social construction?
- Kuhn and Popper: scientific knowledge has less to do with realism than with the opinions shared by the group of scientists
- postmodernism considers this a Social construction
→ indicates that scientific knowledge is not objective knowledge, but a story told by a particular scientific community on the basis of its language and culture
41
what are Science Wars?
- debate between scientists and postmodernists
> e.g. unmasking of scientific knowledge as Social Construction
42
How does recent philosphy of science compare to the past?
- it is a bit more modest
~ it does not try to answer the question of what counts as science, but focuses on more specific topics (e.g. inference, evidence, models and their role, ...)
- now there is more attention for differences between disciplines
~ this leads to specialized philosophy of science directions (philosophy of physics, of social science, of biology, of statistics, ...)
43
what is the standpoint theory of philosophy of science?
> how decides what questions get studied? Whose concerns get science's attention? Who benefit from it and who bear the costs of their questions not being studied?
- the standpoint theory decides whose standpoint we are taking into account, and what standpoint we are missing
44
Standpoint theory
- what is a standpoint?
- a Standpoint is a place from which human beings view the world
- the inequalities of different social groups create differences in their standpoints
- different standpoints can co-exist (e.g. feminist standpoint, indiginous standpoint, ...)
! situated knowledge
45
# standpoint theory
what is Situated Knowledge?
- what is possible for you to know depends on your social identity
= it is not equally possible for everyone to access all knowledge
→ so, for some knowledge marginalized groups are in better position to understand
46
(initial) Feminist standpoint theory
- what was the initial focus?
- challenge idea of science being neutral and objective
- show how gendered identities influence their access to knowledge
47
how did the feminist standpoint theory develop further?
- later on, focus shifted on interactions between social factors
~ e.g. gender, race, sexuality, culture
→ maginalized perspective have the privilege of being in a better position to know certain facts about the world related to the marginalization
48
what standpoints are we missing in psychology? (examples)
- non-eurocentric perspectives
- clinical patients' perspectives
- ...
! how do standpoints influence the kinds of knowledge produced? what is the benefits of each standpoint? ...
49
Value-ladenness
- knowledge involves subjective moral, political, social, economic evaluations
~ e.g. what is good? what is fair? what is harmful? what is important?
50
how did Value-ladenness change throughout time?
- in 20th century, the popular view was that science should stride for objectivity and neutrality & getting rid of all values (social, economic, ...)
- now it's becoming acceptable to justify value-ladenness (particularly in social science)
→ studying what values might play a role can illuminate implicit biases, but it is impossible to get rid of all
51
Well-being
(example of Value-ladenness)
- studied in social and medical sciences
- already in the definition of well-being, there are values (the definition is fundamentally normative)
- there are different ways of conceptualizing, which will prioritize different policies
~ e.g. positive balance of pleasure over pain, objective list, to what extent desires are fulfilled, ...
→ choosing among them focuses on different aspects, so we must be aware that we are bringing in our values
52
is psychometrics value-free?
- on the surface, psychometrics is thought to be "value-free"
- however, historically (eugenics...) and nowadays, psychometrics is not value-free
~ we should be aware of this, evaluate and make these values explicit
53
what are few problems with psychometrics?
- it's not value-free but claims to be
- states that all scientific research, to be objective and neutral, should be quantitative
54
what are the hidden methodological principles in psychological science?
- **Epistemic Freezing** (choose a way to operationalize your concept and then stick to that)
- **Testing Myopia** (choose a hypothesis and test it)
- **Data fixation** (to progress we need new and surprising data)
- **Smallism** (to explain we need to dive a level deeper; mind>brain>neurons)
- **Mirrorism** (our goal should be to develop theories that are "true")
55
Epistemic Freezing
- e.g. through time we figured out new ways to measure heat
→ this changed the meaning of "temperature"
- *epistemic iteration*: iterative revising of theory and measurement (they keep updating each other)
56
how does epistemic freezing look like in psychology?
- it looks like we choose an operationalization and then no longer revise it
- both the measuerment models (e.g. factor models) and instruments (e.g. Beck's depression inventory) hardly changed
- we "freeze" the epistemic iteration process in the first step
57
Testing Myopia
- we learn how to test hypotheses, but how do we get good theories?
- nowadays students know how to test existing hypotheses, but not how to create good theories
58
how does Testing myopia connect to Popper's falsificationism?
- in Popper's falsificationism, it is not specified how we should arrive to a theory, it says that the scientific process starts with hypotheses testing
- it would then be useful to have methodology and rules also on how to build theories!
- strict separation:
~ context of discovery (no logic theory development)
~ context of justification (strict rules for the logic of testing: modus tollens)
59
Data fixation
- how are theories considered in logical positivism vs falsificationism?
- in *logical positivism*, theories are summaries of observations
- in *falsificationism*, theories are tested against observations
60
how does data fixation work in psychology?
how does it work in current philosophy of science?
- in psychology → observations = data
- we oftern hear that "the theory explains the data", but technically a theory only explains a pattern in data
! current philosophy of science no longer distinguishes between observation and theory, but it adds something in the middle: phenomena
61
what are phenomena?
- stable features of the world which are potential objects for explanation
~ e.g. scores on different cognitive tasks all positively correlate with each other (positive manifold)
→ theories explains the phenomenon of the positive manifold, not the actual data obtained
~ e.g. anxiety and depression are correlated (comorbidity)
~ e.g. women are more often diagnosed with depression than men
(picture 3)
62
what is a characteristic of phenomena?
how should they influence the construction of theories?
- good phenomena are often "boring"
> they are well-established and hardly surprising once identified
- we use data to find evidence for these phenomena, and we use theory to explain these phenomena
- for theory building we should thus let go of the principle that we always want "new" and "surprising" data: we should want stable patterns
63
Smallism
- the assumption is that we want to explain theories by always going one level deeper (e.g. neurons, atoms)
- these lower levels are considered more objective, scientific or fundamental than "higher" levels (e.g. psychology)
64
how is smallism in recent philosophy of science?
what is explanatory pluralism?
- we need **explanatory pluralism**
→ explanations at multiple levels are necessary to fully understand the behavior of humans and other animals
65
Network theories and Mental disorders
! *Network theory is against reductionism* !
- instead of searching for the underlying causes of symptoms in the brain, we should consider:
> the symptoms themselves
> the way they reinforce each other
> the way they interact with the environment
- instead of the analogy of a disease, network theory uses the analogy of an *ecosystem*
> in this ecosystem there is the brain, but also the environment and social relations
66
Mirrorism
- "theories need to be true representations of nature"
- in current philosophy of science, it's ok that theories include abstractions and idealizations with pragmatic purposes
> after all, the goal of a theory is to explain phenomena, and not to represent nature
67
Nancy Cartwright on the role of theories
- the truth doesn't explain much, but scientific theories do
- laws of physics also do not describe reality, they are highly idealized objects in models that help explain empirical phenomena
(*picture 4 & 5*)
68
Productive Explanation
- what is it used for?
- how?
- used to check whether a theory explains phenomena
1. we can make a formal model of the theory to predict the data
2. we check whether predicted data has the same patterns as what we can see in empirical studies
= a theory explains a phenomenon if a formal model that explicated the theory produces the statistical pattern that represents the phenomenon
69
what are the (official) steps of Productive Explanation?
1. representing the phenomenon as a statistical pattern
2. explicating the verbal theory in a formal model
3. evaluate whether the formal model produces the statistical pattern
70
Sleep restriction therapy as an example of productive explanation
- they invented a therapy for people with insomnia
> if they only slept 4 hours the night before but laid in bed for 10 hours, the next night they are only allowed to lay in bed for 4 hours
- through productive explanation they created a formal model to predict data
- the predicted data matched the actual observations, therefore the model and theory were correct
> p.s. it works! Isn't that incredibly cool?
71
Summary
*picture 6*
72
Peirce and Pragmatism
- what was his view?
- what is pragmatism?
- the value of knowledge could be judged by how well it helps us deal with the real world
- invented Pragmatism
> human knowledge is information about how to cope with the world
> the truth of knowledge depends on the success one has in engaging with the world, on what works
> the truth of a theoryis only of interest if it makes a practical difference
! knowledge is not a mirror of reality (realism) or a subjective construction (idealism). but information on how to cope with the world
73
What was the impact of pragmatism?
- why?
- not much
→ it did not make a distinction between scientific knowledge and non-scientific knowledge
→ seems less coherent and solid than the usual writing on logic and epistemology
74
how did Peirce distinguish knowledge?
- the method of tenacity
> people hold beliefs and assumptions that have been around for a long time
- the method of authority
> people form opinions by consulting experts
- the a priori method
> people use their own reason and logic to reach conclusions
! all knowledge that helped to cope with the world was useful, so peirce did not differentiate between those three methods and the scientific one
75
why is pragmatism important?
- proposes that practical utility is an important aspect to judge the worth of new knowledge
