Philosophy of science Flashcards
What is the inverse probability problem
Used to be: how probable are observations, given a known theory (eg dice)
For inductive science: how probable is the theory, given the observation -> this is hypothesis testing as we know it
Bayes 1702 - 1761
What was Christiaan Huygens defence against induction
- if you take enough observations, the probability of a true theory is almost 100 percent
- better if you can make accurate predictions and then test them
William Whewell had which insight
theory and observation arent two independent things (fundamental antitheses of philosophy)
Who had first attempt demarcation
Logical positivists: vienna circle in 1920s
1, empirical truths
2. logical truths
3. rest is meaningless
Science is verification of theories as true or false through observation
Criticisms on the first attempt of demarcation
- Verification does not solve the induction problem: the theory can still be wrong
- Science is full of non observables, that also can later suddenly become observable. Others require operational definitions
- Even verified things can result in a wrong understanding
2nd attempt at demarcaiton
Karl Popper and falsificationism:
Science is trying to discover the truth by trying to falsify theories through the hypothetico deductive method.
Science is theory driven.
Statements should make clear predicitons so you can falisify in 1 attempt. Better bc of confirmation bias
Popper: science can be wrong
Limitations of falsification
- not all falsified theories are retested after modification
-
Kuhns view and Lakatos degenerative vs progressive programme
Degeneretive: no new predictions, reuiqres more and more post hoc mods. Data driven? In normal science stage?
Progressive: theory keeps ahead of data, predictions for unexpected events that can be tested. Theory driven? Revolutionary phase?
What makes a good theory?
- big scope: can explain lots of things
- parsimony
- highly falsifiable
- specific predictions
Why was Peirces pragmatism ignored when it was already there in the 1870s
It did not draw a distinction between scientific and nonscientific knowledge, and was thus uninvolved in the demarcation debate.
Pragmatism said all knowledge was useful.
Why is psychology not seen as a science
- stereotype scientist and psychologist dont match
- psychological knowledge is seen as easy and intuitive
- > practitioners than academics. The practitioners tend to forget their scientific background and rely on other types of knowledge
- hermeneutic alternative says science alone is not enough in clinical settings: need for other skills like understanding, empathy
Hermeneutic approach
- interpret and understand people on basis of their personal sociocultural context and history. pay attention to motives, goals (not areas of science?)
- experimental psych focuses too much on mechanistic, how the mind works, and not on content, what is in the mind, emotions, thoughts etc. These things cannot be studied with scientific method but are vital to therapy.
- inspired by psychoanalysis,
Rogers and humanism 1950s
- people as humans, positive, free will, with sociocultural context
- client centered: understanding and support
- open to testing effectiveness
- Maslow
Critical psychology 1970a
- too much white guys
- not as objective as it claims
- social construct: depends on the paradigm, idealism
- neglect of individual differences
- methods determine research questions too much
- be aware of moral responsibility
Pseudoscience
- shift of burden of proof to the objectors
- untestable, vague and exxagreated claims
- personification
- reliance on anecdotal evidence
- no connection with existing scientific knowledge
- misleading language
- not open to peer review or scrutiny
- overreliance on verification instead of falisification
- use too much post hoc mods to account for contradicting evidence
