Summary
Summary theory and reality - philosophy of social science
- Course
- Institution
- Book
Summary theory and reality - Godfrey and Smith
[Show more]
Connected book
Book Title:
Author(s):
- Edition:
- ISBN:
- Edition:
More summaries for
-
Aantekeningen Wetenschapsfilosofie Hoorcolleges
-
Wetenschapsfilosofie Tilburg University (425025): Volledige samenvatting hoorcolleges en werkcolleges. Inclusief oefenvragen per college en een proeftentamen.
-
Philosophy of Science (Social Sciences) summary (full transcript of all lectures)
4 reviews
By: jenzheng482 • 5 year ago
By: aspd • 5 year ago
By: cvwoodfield • 5 year ago
By: katherineamcclendon • 6 year ago
Summary is mostly sentences pulled directly from the text and pasted in paragraph form. It get's the job done, but misses a few (fairly crucial) points/pieces of information. I used the summary to supplement the audiobook.
Seller
Follow
WelmoedClaus
Reviews received
Content preview
Chapter 1 introduction1.1
Why is it best to start with older ideas and work through to the present? One reason is that the
historical development of general ideas about science is itself an interesting topic. Another reason is
that the philosophy of science has been in a state of fermentation and uncertainty in recent years. A
good way to understand the maze of options and opinions in the field at the moment is to trace the
path that brought us to the state we’re in now. Philosophy is an attempt to ask and answer some very
basic questions about the universe and our place within it.
1.2
What is science? There is consensus about some central cases. People often think of physics as the
purest example of science. Certainly physics has been a heroic history and a central role in the
development of modern science. A few have suggested that theoretical physics is becoming less
scientific than it used to be, as it is evolving into an esoteric, mathematical model-building exercise
that has little contact with the real world. At one time the classification of economics and psychology
as sciences was controversial. Those fields have now settled into a scientific status. There is still a
much-debated border region, however, and at the moment this includes areas like anthropology and
archaeology. Some will call a field scientific to suggest that it uses rigorous methods and hence
delivers results we should trust. Less commonly a person might call an investigation scientific in order
to say something negative about it – to suggest that it is dehumanizing. In the ancient, medieval and
early modern world science referred to the results of logical demonstrations that revealed general
and necessary truths. Over time, the term science came to be used for work with closer links to
observation and experiment, and the association between science and an ideal of conclusive proof
receded. Some writers use terms like science for any work that assess ideas and solves problems in a
way guided by observational evidence. Science is seen as something found in all human cultures,
even though the word is a western invention. Seeing it as a cultural phenomenon that is localized in
space and time. In the end we should try to develop both:
1. A general understanding of how humans gain knowledge of the world around them and
2. An understanding of what makes the work descended from the Scientific Revolution different
from other kinds of investigations of the world
One of the hazards of philosophy is the temptation to come up with theories that are too broad and
sweeping. Theories of science need to be scrutinized with this problem in mind.
1.3
Within the philosophy of science, we can distinguish between epistemological issues and
metaphysical issues (as well as issues that fall into neither category). Epistemology is the side of
philosophy that is concerned with questions about knowledge, evidence and rationality. Metaphysics
deals with general questions about the nature of reality. We will have to deal with disagreement
about the right form for a philosophical theory of science. One obvious possibility is that we might try
for an understanding of scientific thinking. In the twentieth century, many philosophers rejected this
idea, insisting that we should seek a logical theory of science. That is, we should try to understand the
abstract structure of scientific theories and the relationships between theories and evidence. A third
option is that we should try to come up with a methodology, a set of rules or procedures that
scientists do or should follow. Distinction between descriptive and normative theories is very
important. A descriptive theory is an attempt to describe what actually goes on without making value
judgements. A normative theory does make value judgements; it talks about what should go on, or
what things should be like. For some people, the crucial question we need to answer about science is
whether or not it is objective. Sometimes objectivity is taken to mean the absence of bias; objectivity
is impartiality of fairness. But the term objective is also often used to express claims about whether
the existence of something is independent of our minds. Francis Bacon and René Descartes tried to
give detailed specifications of how scientists should proceed. Although describing a special scientific
method looks like a natural thing to try to do, many philosophers became sceptical about the idea of
,giving anything like a recipe for science. Science is too creative and unpredictable a process for there
to be a recipe that describes it. The idea of the logical structure of science is that the philosopher
should think of a scientific theory as an abstract structure, something like a set of interrelated
sentences. The philosopher aims to give a description of the logical relations between the sentences
in the theory and the relations between the theory and observational evidence. Philosophy can also
try to describe the logical relations between different scientific theories in related fields.
Neighbouring fields of philosophy of science history of science, sociology of science and parts of
psychology. People in these neighbouring fields constantly found themselves doing philosophy
themselves.
1.4
The three ideas introduced in this section can be seen as rivals; they can be seen as alternative
starting points, or paths into the problem.
1. Empiricism; scientific thinking and investigation have the same basic pattern as everyday
thinking and investigation. The only source of real knowledge about the world is experience.
Empiricism is a view about where all knowledge comes from, not just scientific knowledge.
But science is especially successful because it is organized, systematic, and especially
responsive to experience. But direct empirical tests are no guarantee of success. Another line
of criticism holds that empiricism is false, because it is committed to an absurdly simple
picture of thought, belief and justification. Empiricists do not deny that reasoning is needed
to make sense of what we observe.
2. Mathematics; what makes science different form other kinds of investigation, and especially
successful, is its attempt to understand the natural world using mathematical tools. What
makes science special is its attempt to quantify phenomena and detect mathematical
patterns in the flow of events. It is surely sensible to see an emphasis on mathematics as
something that can be combined with empiricist ideas.
3. Social structure; what makes science different from other kinds of investigation, and
especially successful, is its unique social structure. An emphasis on social structure has often
been developed in a way that is strongly critical of the empiricist tradition. Steven Shapin
argues that mainstream empiricism often operates within the fantasy that each individual can
observationally test hypotheses for himself. Almost every move that a scientist makes
depends on elaborate networks of cooperation and trust. The hard thing is working out which
kinds of experience are relevant to the testing of hypotheses, and working out who can be
trusted as a source of reliable and relevant reports. Philosophers have begun to develop
theories of how science works that emphasize social organization but are also intended to fit
in with a form of empiricism. These accounts of science stress the special balance of
cooperation and competition found in scientific communities. The empiricists can argue that
this social organization made scientific communities uniquely responsive to experience.
It is more likely that the three ideas should be seen as pieces of a more complete answer.
1.5
In the scientific revolution (1550 – 1700) people, events and theories carry special weight in
discussions of the nature of science. The scientific revolution fed into further processes of change.
This was a time in which many new, unorthodox ideas were floating around. The worldview that had
been inherited form the middle ages was a combination of Christianity with the ideas of the ancient
Greek philosopher Aristotle. Copernicus published a work outlining an alternative picture of the
universe. Galileo vigorously made the case for the literal truth of the Copernican system, as opposed
to its mere usefulness. Kepler’s model of the universe, also developed around the start of the
seventeenth century. Part of what makes this initial period so dramatic is the removal of the earth
from the centre of the universe, an event laden with symbolism. In the mid-seventeenth century we
also see the rise of scientific societies. These societies were intended to organize the new research
and break the institutional monopoly of the universities. The period ends with the work of Newton.
, So by the end of the seventeenth century, the Scholastic worldview had been replaced by a
combination of Copernicanism and a form of mechanism. As far as method is concerned, a
combination of experiment and mathematical analysis had triumphed. This ends the period usually
referred to as the scientific revolution. But the changes described above fed into further changes,
both intellectual and political.
Chapter 2 logic plus empiricism
2.1
The early version of empiricism is called logical positivism, and the later, moderate form is more
usually called logical empiricism. Empiricism is often summarized with the claim that the only source
of knowledge is experience. The classical works from Locke, Berkeley and Hume were based upon
theories about the mind and how it works. Their view of the mind is often called sensationalist. The
role of thought is to track en respond to patterns in these sensations. A problem for empiricism has
been a tendency to lapse into scepticism, the idea that we cannot know anything about the world.
External world scepticism how can we know anything about the real world that lies behind the flow
of sensations? Inductive scepticism why do we have reason to think that the patterns in past
experience will also hold in the future? Perhaps our concept of the world is just a concept of a
patterned collection of sensations. This view is sometimes called phenomenalism. Empiricists have
often found themselves backing into views like this. This is partly because they have often tended to
think of the mind as confined behind a veil of ideas or sensations. The mind has no access to anything
outside the veil. Rationalists believe that that pure reasoning can be a route to knowledge that does
not depend on experience. Mathematics seemed to be a compelling example of this kind of
knowledge. Kant argued that all our thinking involves a subtle interaction between experience and
pre-existing mental structures that we use to make sense of experience. The views called rationalist
were often forms of empiricism; the term was often used in a broad way, to indicate a confidence in
the power of human reason. The empiricist tradition has tended to be:
1. Pro-science
2. Worldly rather than religious
3. Politically moderate or liberal
2.2
Vienna Circle was a group of people who were scientifically oriented and who disliked much of what
was happening in philosophy. Logical positivism was an extreme form of empiricism. The movement
from logical positivism to logical empiricism should not be taken to suggest that the later stages in the
movement were more empiricists. The opposite is true. It is easier to understand logical positivism if
we pay attention to what the logical positivists were against. Absolute idealism reality is in some
sense spiritual or mental. But this is not a view in which each person’s reality is made up in some way
by that person’s ideas. Rather, a single reality as a whole is said to have a spiritual or rational
character. Extentialism (Heidegger) we must understand our lives as based, first and foremost, upon
practical coping with the world rather than knowledge of it. All our experience is affected by the
awareness that we are traveling toward death. And the best thing we can do in this situation is stare
it in the face and live an authentic life. Logical positivism was a plea for enlightenment values, in
opposition to mysticism, romanticism and nationalism. The positivists championed reason over the
obscure, the logical over the intuitive.
2.3
Logical positivist views about science and knowledge were based on a general theory of language; we
need to start here, before moving to the views about science. Two main ideas:
- The analytic-synthetic distinction. Some sentences are true or false simply in virtue of their
meaning, regardless of how the world happens to be’ these are analytic. A synthetic sentence
is true or false in virtue of both the meaning of the sentence and how the world actually is.
Analytic truths are empty truths, with no factual content. For logical positivism, mathematical
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through EFT, credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying this summary from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller WelmoedClaus. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy this summary for R108,43. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
85443 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy summaries for 14 years now