summary of Philisophy of science and ethics, second year biomedical sciences
47 keer bekeken 7 keer verkocht
Vak
Philosophy of science and ethics (AB_1217)
Instelling
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU)
This is a summary of the lectures from philosphy of science and ethics. The second year course of biomedical sciences. The summary contains all 8 lectures.
Lecture 1 What is science?
Two types of philosophy of science:
theoretical philosophy = philosophy of science, logic, language etc.
practical philosophy = ethics, political and law
philosophers of science ask higher-level questions about science. By reflecting on implicit
assumptions of scientific practice, about criteria used. They uncover norms and values in science and
question methods of science. They explore limits of scientific knowledge and inquiry. Gathering data
and comparing theories is not part of their job.
The methods used by the philosopher is logical reasoning, thought experiments and conceptual
analyses. One of most used methods is arguments and counter-arguments = investigate topics by
making and responding to arguments.
Science vs. pseudoscience
Particular methods make science, science: experimentation, observation and theory construction.
This does however not answer the question completely and distinction between science and
pseudoscience is needed. Demarcation problem = demarcating proper science from look-a-likes. The
theoretical value of this is understanding what distinguishes good from bad science. Practical value is
decision guidance in private, public and academic life. Pseudoscience = non-science posing as
science. Importent notes are :
Not everything that classifies as non-science is pseudo-science ethics, theology
Defenders of pseudoscience commonly promote view that deviates from established
scientific theories fraud does not count as pseudoscience
Demarcation is not always easy as science changes over time and in itself is heterogenous
falsificationism
How can we distinguish these two from each other. Falsificationism is way to answer this question.
Scientific endeavors aim to reveal natural regularities in order to explain and predict the occurrence
of empirical phenomena might help to distinguish science form non science.
Popper tries to identify single criterion that enables us to distinguish science from pseudoscience. He
is not interested in whether a theory is true of false but in what guarantees the status of a theory as
scientific. Popper’s conclusions are:
1. It is easy to obtain conformations for nearly every theory if we look for it
2. Conformations should only count if they are result of risky prediction unenlightened
by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible
with the theory an event which would have refuted the theory
3. Every good scientific theory is a prohibition it forbids certain thighs to happen, the
more it forbids the better it is
4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is nonscientific irrefutability
is not a virtue of a theory but a vice
5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it or refute it, testability is
falsifiability there is a degree of testability some more testable than others
6. Conforming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of
the theory it can be presented as serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the
theory
, 7. Some testable theories when found to be false are still upheld by their admirers by
introducing ad hoc assumptions or by reinterpreting the theory in such a way that it
escapes refutation
Ad hoc explanation = formed for only one particular purpose, to address a specific problem what
makes a hypothesis ad hoc is not the content of the hypothesis but the motivation of why it is
produced.
Famous example is discussion between defenders of evolution theory and creationism. Creationism
is not risky enough or production of ad hoc explanations making it unfalsifiable. It is unclear which
evidence would make a creationist change their mind.
Popper’s criterion might be overly simplistic scientific theories are not rejected whenever they
conflict with empirical data. Instead scientists stick to their theories and try to save them by ad hoc
hypotheses.
, Lecture 2 Interference
Science is supposed to teach us about the world and should produce knowledge. How does science
do this and helps us to gain knowledge? Science relies on inferences = ways to come from premises
to conclusions. Three different ways to make these inferences: deduction, induction and abduction.
Deduction
Deduction = the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. If the premises are
true the conclusion must also be true. Some might include false premises, if the premises are true
the conclusions must also be true. Validity = truth of the conclusion is guaranteed by truth of
premises. Soundness = truth of conclusion is guaranteed by truth of premises and the premises are
actually true. We do not use deductive inferences in practice because they are hard to come by.
P1. No human is ticklish bachelors are unmarried French men like wine
P2. Julie is a human john is a bachelor Pierre is a French men
C. Julie is not ticklish john is unmarried Pierre likes wine
Induction
Induction = truth of premises makes the conclusion likely. Even if premises are true the conclusion
could still be false, rather making an informed guess. Induction is weaker than deduction because we
cannot be absolutely sure. Induction relies on assumed similarity holding between members of a
certain category or reference class. Induction does have a problem, because of assumptions of
uniformity of nature based on past experiences with singular instances of single class we make
conclusions about the entire class. According to Hume we cannot prove truth of uniformity of nature,
even though there is empirical evidence. It is done by circular reasoning.
P1. Mary lives in Scotland person A with norbix has altered X
P2. Almost all Scottish have raincoat person B with Norbix has altered X
C. Mary owns a raincoat Everyone with Norbix has altered X
Abduction
Abduction = inferences to find the best explanation. These inferences look a lot like induction,
because neither of them guarantee the truth. However there are some differences: abduction makes
explicit reference to explanations. Induction often relies on similar categories or classes, abduction
does not. Induction relies on past experiences, abduction does not need this. Sherlock Holmes uses
this method to find the best explanation by eliminating the impossible options. But how do we
identify which explanation is the best? And what do we do when there are more than one good
explanation?
P1. The cheese is gone Tim and harry had a fight
P2. Scratching noise Yesterday they were together
C. cheese was eaten by a mouse They have made up
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
√ Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, Bancontact of creditcard voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper lente90. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €6,49. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
