Week 3: Logical-positivism Flashcards
(30 cards)
What is Scientific Methodology? And what are its two roles?
It’s the study of how science works, specifically, how scientists develop and test theories.
Two roles:
1. Normative/prescriptive: it tells us how science should be done (rules or ideals).
2. Descriptive: it describes how science is actually done in practice (what scientists do).
What should a good theory contain?
- Truthfulness: it should reflect reality.
- Content: it should say something meaningful about the world.
What should a scientific theory not contain?
- Contradictions
- Tautologies: statements that are always true but tell us nothing about the real world (e.g. “All bachelors are unmarried men).
A theory with high empirical content
The theory says a lot about what the world is like, and what would be different in other possible worlds.
But the more a theory says (the more empirical claims it makes), the more ways it could be wrong. So a theory that’s rich in content is more testable, but also more vulnerable to being proven false.
Example: “Water boils at 100 degrees at sea level” tells us something specific and testable.
Empirical knowledge
Based on observation and experience (e.g., “Cats purr when content”).
Tautologies (or pure thought knowledge)
Always true (e.g., “1 + 1 = 2”), but don’t depend on observation.
Why does science need more than a tautology?
While tautologies are logically true in all worlds, science needs more than this; it needs empirical statements that can be tested in the real world.
So: Good scientific theories must be grounded in observation, not just logic or reasoning.
Good science is based on:
- Accurate and careful observations.
- Repeatability: others can observe the same thing.
- Objectivity: observations aren’t based on personal opinion
What is empiricism? And which two key questions does it raise (going from observation to theory)?
The idea that knowledge comes from experience and observation.
-
Which statements can we test directly?
This is about the empirical basis: what can be immediately observed? -
How do we move from these observable statements to broader theories?
This is the problem of confirmation: how do we justify general theories based on limited observations?
Theory-ladenness of observation
The idea that observations are never truly “pure”; we always interpret them through some theoretical lens.
Even if you try to be neutral, some background assumptions always shape what you see.
What happens when you try to remove all theory from observation (to make it totally objective)?
It becomes harder to explain how we get from observation to theory.
Logic
The study of argumentation.
An argument consists of:
Premises: what we presuppose.
Conclusion: what we conclude from those premises.
Valid argument
When the conclusion follows the premises.
Deductive argument
The truth of the premises absolutely guarantee the truth of the conclusion. Truth-preserving; no new mistakes introduced.
Inductive argument
The truth of the premises gives good reason to believe the conclusion, but does not absolutely guarantee the truth of the conclusion. The truth of the premises makes the conclusion likely, but it doesn’t guarantee it.
Example deductive argument
- Premise: All humans are mortal.
- Premise: Socrates is a human.
- Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.
This is deductively valid; conclusion must be true if premises are true.
Example invalid argument
- Premise: Every swan I’ve seen is white.
- Conclusion: All swans are white.
This is inductive; based on repeated observation, but not certain.
Naive empiricists
They believe that scientific theories are trustworthy just because they’re based on observation.
But in reality:
1. No single scientist has made all the relevant observations themselves.
2. Scientists trust each other and build on each other’s work.
3. Observations themselves are often interpreted through theory.
Necessary condition
Something that you have to fulfil in order to achieve a certain status.
Example: for a country to be a democracy, it must have elections. Elections are necessary, but not enough on their own.
Sufficient condition
Doesn’t have to be necessary, but it is good enough or even more than necessary to achieve a certain status.
Example: saying a democracy means everyone votes on every decision is sufficient to define a democracy, but not necessary, because real democracies don’t do that.
To know something, three conditions must be met:
- Belief: you must believe the thing.
- Truth: it must actually be true.
- Justification: you must have good reasons to believe it.
Example: if you guess the correct answer on a test, it’s true and you believe it — but without justification, it’s not knowledge.
Problem of justification
Every reason you give to justify a belief needs another reason. This leads to:
- Infinite regress (never-ending chain of justifications)
- Circular reasoning (your reasoning ends up depending on itself).
This makes it hard to truly justify anything without some starting point.
Types of knowledge
- Knowledge by acquaintance: you know something or someone directly (e.g. visiting The Hague).
- Practical knowledge: you know how to do something (e.g. riding a bike).
- Propositional knowledge: you know that something is true (e.g. “There are many bikes in The Hague”).
