What is this thing called "science"? Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

the common sense view of science

A
  • science is special because its knowledge is based on facts
  • often contrasted with other forms of knowledge that might be:
    1) based on authority
    2) revelation
    3) superstition
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

where do facts come from?

A
  • formalised by the empiricists and the positivists
  • they had a view - knowledge should be derived from the facts of experience.
  • break it down into:
    1) careful and unbiased observers can directly access facts through the senses/observation
    2) facts come before and are independent of theories
    3) facts form a firm and reliable base for scientific knowledge
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

facts through the senses

A
  • external physical causes that produces some physical changes in our sense organs
  • this account implies direct and unmediated access to the world through our senses
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

observation is not theory-free

A
  • 2 scientists might “observe” something different even when looking at the same thing
  • in some fields, being able to make observations actually requires training e.g.,:
    1) training in how to observe stuff through a microscope
    2) training in how to distinguish different kinds of behaviour
    3) training in how to read an x-ray
  • so a simple claim that observations are unbiased or straightforwardly given by the senses seems to be false
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

what do we mean by facts?

A
  • fact could refer to some external state of world
  • or fact could refer to statements about those external states
    -when we talk about facts as the basis of science, we’re talking about these statements.
  • this type of fact is an “observation statement”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

do facts come before theories?

A
  • formulating observation statements might require substantial background knowledge or a conceptual framework to place them in.
  • they aren’t completely independent of theory
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

relevant facts

A
  • intervening through experiment allows you to tell what the relevant facts of your observation are
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

active observation and intervention

A
  • by intervening on the system, we can tell which facts are relevant.
  • but scientific facts may play a part in helping to determine what is and what isn’t relevant.
  • observations cant be completely divorced from theories.
  • experiments will presume the truth of certain theories.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

objectivity

A
  • the idea that science is objective in a simple sense of “objectivity” is misleading
  • your conceptual framework, and theoretical assumptions, and even your knowledge and training can play a part in what kinds of observations you can make or what types of observation statements you can formulate.
  • objectivity doesn’t mean observations free from theoretical assumptions.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

objectivity is more complex

A
  • it means:
    1) publicly and independently verifiable methods
    2) recognising theoretical assumptions
    3) theory/data that are open to revision and improvement
    4) free from avoidable forms of bias
  • it is also objective in the sense that despite all this, when you make the observations either the behaviour will happen or it won’t, the detector will flash or it wont, etc. Your theory cant make things happen
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

deriving theories from facts

A
  • scientific knowledge is derived from facts.
  • logically derived.
  • to understand what it might mean to logically derive scientific knowledge we need to know a bit about logic.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

deductive logic

A
  • a deductive argument is called valid if the conclusion follow from the premises.
  • deductions is only concerned with whether (3) follows from (1) and (2)
  • it is not concerned whether (1) and (2) are true or false
  • the argument assumes that (1) and (2) are true, but doesn’t establish the truth
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

false but valid

A
  • logic only tells us what follows from what, if there is truth in our premises, then there is truth in our conclusions.
  • if our premises are false, then our conclusions will also be false.
  • deductive logic is truth-preserving, but it can’t tell us what is true and what is false, the conclusion is just a re-statement of the information contained in the premises.
  • so deductive logic cant create new knowledge, so we need a way to go from particular observation to generalisations.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

induction

A
  • the process of induction allows us to construct arguments.
  • but the problem with arguments like this is that all the premises may be true and yet the conclusion can be false.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

collecting observations

A
  • more observations are better than fewer observations - but how many is enough?
  • observations in many different contexts - but what makes a context different and what makes differences relevant/
    1) different contexts should be novel in some sense
    2) that is, it should not just be trivial changes
  • no contradicting observations - but what about probabilistic phenomena?
  • clear and simple rules aren’t easy to come by
  • but the bigger problem is induction can never establish truth
  • we can never be certain of the truth
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

using induction and deduction

A
  • instead of just collecting confirmations we can empty induction and deduction together.
    1) collect observations and use induction to come up with general laws and theories from particular observations
    2) use deduction to figure out what logically follows from these general laws and theories.
  • this approach nicely captures the idea of testability
  • our theories should make predictions about what we expect to find, and we can test these predictions with more observations.
17
Q

deduction and knowing what is false

A
  • Karl Popper saw trouble with relying on induction, he wanted to put science on a firmer logical footing.
  • he proposed that while you cant use deduction to figure out what is true, you can use deduction to figure out what is false.
  • he said a key quality of scientific theories is that they should be falsifiable.
  • theories can come into existence through any means, but once a theory has been proposed it has to be rigorously and ruthlessly tested.
18
Q

falsification of theoires- confirmation

A
  • premise: a swa that was white was spotted in London
  • conclusion: all swans are white
  • the conclusion might be true or false, but it doesn’t logically follow from the premise
19
Q

falsication of theoires - falsification

A
  • premise: a swan, which was not white, was spotted in Australia
  • conclusion: not all swans are white
  • the conclusion logically flows from the premise, so if the premise is true the conclusion is true
  • we cant prove the claim “all swans are white”, but we can reject it - can claim its false
20
Q

degrees of falsifiability

A
  • good theories are falsifiable, better theories are more falsifiable
  • bad theories are ones that can seemingly accommodate any observation
  • if two outcomes are possible and the theory can explain outcome one and outcome two then this is bad.
  • good theories are broad in their applicability but precise in their predictions.
21
Q

encountering a falsifier

A
  • you observe something that contradicts the theory your testing
  • you could:
    1) you could abandon the theory
    2) you could modify or amend the theory
22
Q

probabilistic theories

A
  • theories in psych tend to be probabilistic, they make claims about how things are on average, not claims about how things are in every case.
  • much of what we do with statistics is figuring out how to test and specify probabilistic claims.
  • a single contradictory observation cant falsify a probabilistic claim because we will sometimes expect contradictions with probabilistic claims.
23
Q

abandoning the theory

A
  • experiments don’t test one theory in isolation, but rely on a range of auxiliary assumptions and other support theories.
24
Q

the Duhem-Quine problem

A
  • this is the telling of which part of the interconnected web of theories is at fault.
  • popper didn’t have a good answer on how to figure out where to lay the blame for an apparent falsification.
  • but he thought that theories shouldn’t be abandoned too quickly
  • he suggested that dogmatism, because at the start scientists might still be figuring out the details, and therefore they might just need to make some tweaks and modify their theories instead of abandoning them.
25
Q

revising and amending theories

A

ad-hoc modification:
- modification has fewer tests - original theory can be tested by eating any bread.
- modified theory can be tested by eating any bread except that particular bread.
acceptable modification:
- modification leads to new test

26
Q

problems with Popper’s falsifcationism

A
  • it can be difficult to figure out when to abandon theories and when to amend theories.
  • it can be difficult to compare two theories to see which is “better”
  • the philosopher Lakatos developed his idea of research programmes as a reaction to these two problems.
27
Q

research programmes

A
  • one key aspect of Lakatos’s idea of research programmes is that not all parts of a science are on par.
  • some laws or principles are so fundamental they might be considered a defining part of the science.
  • other parts might be more peripheral.
  • Lakatos called these fundamental parts the hard core and the more peripheral parts the protective belt.
  • he suggested that the hard core is resistant to falsification, so when an apparent falsifier is observed the blame is placed on theories in the protective belt.
  • research programmes are defined by what is in their hard core.
28
Q

hard cores and protective belts

A
  • in cognitive science the hard core might include the theory that the mind/brain is a particular kind of computational system and the protective belt might include specific theories about how memory works.
  • in biomedical view of mental illness the hard core might include the theory that mental illness can be explained biochemically and the protective belt might include the dopamine theory of schizophrenia.
  • when apparent falsifications occur the protective belt is up for revision but the hard core stays intact.
  • falsifying the hard core amounts to abandoning the research programme.
29
Q

working within a research programme

A
  • on Lakatos’s view, scientists work within a research programme.
  • he split guidelines for working within a research programme into a negative and positive heuristic, specifying what scientists shouldn’t do but also what they should do.
  • the negative heuristic includes things like not abandoning the hard core.
  • the positive heuristic is harder to specify exactly, but it includes suggestions on how to supplement the protective belt to develop the research programme further.
  • that is, it should specify a programme of research.
  • the research programme should identify problems to solve.
30
Q

progressive/degenerating programmes

A
  • Lakatos was also interested in comparing research programmes, something that is difficult to do on a strictly falsifications account.
  • he divided research programmes into those that are progressive and those that are degenerating.
  • progressive research programmes are coherent:
    1) progressive research programmes make novel predictions that follow naturally from theories that are part of the programme.
    2) these predictions are then confirmed by experiments - degenerating research programmes are those that have faced so many falsifications that they have been modified to the point of being incoherent.
    3) at this point, it’s no longer sustainable to carry on modifying the protective belt, and instead, the hard core must be abandoned.
31
Q

moving from one programme to another

A
  • when the hard core is abandoned then scientists move from one research programme into a new one
  • some examples of this in psychology might include:
    1) the move from psychological behaviourism to cognitive science
    2) from classical cognitive science to embodied cognitive science
    3) from connectionism to deep neural networks
    4) from sociobiology to evolutionary psychology
  • but again, what is and isnt a research programme isnt always clear, because often the hard core and the protective belt are left implicit and not made explicit.