Week 4

Question 1

What problem arises when trying to quantify confirmation?

Answer 1

It is unclear how many instances are needed to confidently believe a general statement.

Question 2

What is falsification, according to Karl Popper?

Answer 2

The idea that science should focus on refuting theories rather than confirming them.

Question 3

Why is a single observation sometimes enough to confirm a general statement?

Answer 3

When there is strong expected uniformity, as in native speakers’ grammatical judgments.

Question 4

What is the standard view of science regarding theory testing?

Answer 4

Scientists start with objective observations, test theories against them, and aim for consensus by steadily approaching the best theory.

Question 5

What is confirmation in scientific methodology?

Answer 5

Confirmation occurs when observations support a theory.

Question 6

What is disconfirmation in scientific methodology?

Answer 6

Disconfirmation happens when observations undermine a theory.

Question 7

What is an instance in the context of confirmation?

Answer 7

An instance is a specific case that supports a general statement (e.g., “Hamlet is good” supports “All plays of Shakespeare are good”).

Question 8

Why is a single observation sometimes enough to confirm a general statement?

Answer 8

When there is strong expected uniformity, as in native speakers’ grammatical judgments.

Question 9

Why is a single observation often insufficient for confirmation?

Answer 9

In cases with low expected uniformity, such as artistic styles, many diverse observations are needed.

Question 10

What are the four factors that influence how much evidence is needed for confirmation?

Answer 10

1. Expected uniformity
2. Scope of the general statement
3. Representativeness of instances
4. Prior probability of the statement

Question 11

How does expected uniformity affect confirmation?

Answer 11

More uniform phenomena (e.g., grammatical rules) require fewer observations to confirm a general statement.

Question 12

How does the scope of a general statement affect confirmation?

Answer 12

The broader the claim, the more evidence is needed to confirm it.

Question 13

Why is representativeness of instances important in confirmation?

Answer 13

Observations must be diverse enough to reflect the full subject of study.

Question 14

How does prior probability influence confirmation?

Answer 14

Statements that seem unlikely require stronger evidence to be confirmed.

Question 15

What is an example of a general statement that is easy to confirm?

Answer 15

“The Bell-Beaker culture didn’t have metal artificial hips” – since it’s already highly probable.

Question 16

What is an example of a general statement that requires more evidence?

Answer 16

“The Bell-Beaker culture was entirely pacifist” – since it’s highly improbable based on known history.

Question 17

What is theory-ladenness in the context of confirmation?

Answer 17

Theory-ladenness means that when evaluating how much observations support a theory, we rely on prior theoretical convictions rather than making purely neutral observations.

Question 18

How does prior knowledge influence our expectations of uniformity in observations?

Answer 18

Our expectations about uniformity depend on our prior knowledge; for example, we expect more uniformity in grammatical judgments than in color choices because language learning enforces consistency, whereas painting allows more variation.

Question 19

Why do we need prior theoretical knowledge to determine the representativeness of evidence?

Answer 19

Because to assess representativeness, we need to understand what kinds of variations are typical in a given domain, such as historical changes in Picasso’s paintings or regional differences in grammar.

Question 20

How does theory-ladenness complicate the standard view of science?

Answer 20

The standard view suggests theories are tested against observations, but in reality, testing always relies on pre-existing theoretical assumptions, making the relationship between observation and theory more complex.

Question 21

What is the naive inductive approach to scientific reasoning?

Answer 21

It assumes that if we observe many instances of A having property B without counterexamples, we can conclude that all As have property B.

Question 22

How does real scientific reasoning differ from naive induction?

Answer 22

Real science includes assumptions about uniformity, representativeness, and prior plausibility, making the reasoning process more complex and theory-dependent.

Question 23

What challenge arises from the theory-ladenness of observation?

Answer 23

It raises the question of where our initial theories come from and whether they were simply invented, potentially undermining the reliability of science.

Question 24

Why might scientists disagree even when presented with the same evidence?

Answer 24

Because different scientists may have different theoretical commitments, affecting their judgment of a theory’s plausibility and the representativeness of evidence.

Question 25

How does theory-ladenness challenge the objectivity of science?

Answer 25

If all testing depends on prior theories, then scientific consensus may be difficult to achieve, as different theoretical frameworks can lead to different conclusions.

Question 26

What does Popper mean by "falsification"?

Answer 26

Falsification is the idea that scientific theories should be testable in a way that allows them to be proven false by observations.

Question 27

According to Popper, what is the role of a good scientist?

Answer 27

A good scientist actively seeks to disprove their own theories rather than trying to confirm them.

Question 28

Why does Popper reject induction in science?

Answer 28

Popper argues that induction relies on past observations to predict the future, which is uncertain, whereas falsification uses deduction, which is logically certain.

Question 29

What logical structure does falsification follow?

Answer 29

1. If theory T is true, then observation W should occur. 2. Observation W does not occur. 3. Therefore, theory T is false.

Question 30

How was the Donatio Constantini falsified?

Answer 30

Philologists found words in the document that did not exist in the 4th century, proving it was a later forgery.

Question 31

Why is falsification simpler than confirmation, according to Popper?

Answer 31

Falsification relies only on deduction, whereas confirmation requires a theoretical framework to determine how much evidence supports a theory.

Question 32

What does Popper mean by "corroboration"?

Answer 32

Corroboration means that a theory has survived multiple tests but is not confirmed as true, only that it has not yet been falsified.

Question 33

What contradiction exists in Popper’s falsificationism?

Answer 33

Falsification itself relies on theoretical assumptions, which must be established using induction—the very method Popper rejects.

Question 34

Why does the author argue that Popper’s falsificationism fails as a description of science?

Answer 34

Scientists often accept well-supported theories as "probably true" and do not continuously attempt to falsify them, contradicting Popper’s claim that science only seeks falsifications.

Question 35

What is the main conclusion about theoretical frameworks in science?

Answer 35

Theoretical frameworks are necessary for science because even falsification depends on background assumptions that require inductive reasoning.

Question 36

What is Popper's claim about unfalsifiable theories?

Answer 36

Popper argues that theories that cannot be falsified are pseudo-scientific because they do not make predictions that can be tested.

Question 37

Why does Popper’s demand for prediction create problems for the humanities?

Answer 37

Many humanities disciplines, like literary analysis or art history, aim to interpret existing works rather than predict future ones, making Popper’s falsification method unsuitable.

Question 38

How does the example of Shakespearean tragedy challenge Popper’s view?

Answer 38

A theory about Shakespeare’s tragedies should be based on all of them, but Popper’s method would require forming a theory on only some and then testing predictions on the rest, which is illogical.

Question 39

Why is prediction not always necessary in scientific study?

Answer 39

Some sciences focus on interpretation rather than prediction, aiming to understand existing material rather than forecast new observations.

Question 40

What distinction does Popper fail to make in his philosophy of science?

Answer 40

He does not differentiate between predictive sciences (e.g., physics) and interpretative sciences (e.g., history, literary analysis).

Question 41

Why can’t Popper’s falsificationism be fully adopted in the humanities?

Answer 41

Humanities scholars aim to interpret and understand rather than predict, which does not fit within Popper’s strict falsification model.

Question 42

What did Kuhn witness about science?

Answer 42

He didn't see a chaotic succession of events, but he saw a pattern of alternating phases, which followed each other in a standard way.

Question 43

Kuhn's phrases of science

Answer 43

1. Pre-paradigmatic phrase 2. Normal science 3. Crises 4. Scientific revolution

Question 44

Pre-paradigmatic phase

Answer 44

Every science starts in this phase. At some point, the science will move onto 'normal science', which means that it will never go back to the first phase. The other phases can occur many times.

Question 45

Normal science

Answer 45

Phase that we always return to and that we are in most of the time. During normal science, scientists do not critically question the paradigm, and this lack of constant criticism is seen as essential for detailed scientific work and progress.

Question 46

Paradigm

Answer 46

All the theories, concepts, methods, and so on, that a scientific discipline takes for granted and that direct research in that discipline. Kuhn says that it's hard to tell whether a new paradigm is better than an old one.

Question 47

How does Kuhn challenge being critical?

Answer 47

Kuhn challenges the notion that science is always critical; he argues that science is mostly non-critical during normal science phases. Kuhn suggests that the belief in science as a critical enterprise comes from not recognizing the phases other than normal science, where critical examination is more prevalent.

Question 48

Good/bad scientists and paradigms

Answer 48

Paradigms set the standard for what is good and what is bad science. Scientists who adopt and follow the paradigms are considered good scientists. But the standards for science change during time/revolutions.

Question 49

Incommensurability

Answer 49

Lack of a comparability using a neutral standard.