Samenvatting
Summary Biology & Society: Ethical and Professional Aspects, lectures & syllabus
- Instelling
- Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (RuG)
Samenvatting van alle colleges en de hele syllabus.
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 3 van de 28 pagina's
Voorbeeld 3 van de 28 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
WHAT IS SCIENCE?Standard view: science = a rational, empirical and objective activity which can be characterized by
logical reasoning, empirical evidence (through observation) and the formulation of theories and
hypotheses
Science is:
- objective
- independent
- based on neutral observations
- value-free
Positivism: only knowledge based on observation (= positive knowledge) can serve the progress of
society
- Vienna Circle: prominent philosophers and natural scientists thought that non-rational philosophies
were a treat to society → two characteristics of science are essential
1. Logical reasoning
2. Substantiation of knowledge by means of empirical evidence
Logical empiricism = logical positivism → science generated knowledge about reality → should be
the basis for solving political and societal problems
- theories should be verifiable by means of observation
- indirect observations: concepts that are not directly visible must correspond to verifiable
statements → indirect observation by artifacts
- theory is founded on observations → theoretical statements to which this does not apply are
scientific meaningless
Empirical cycle: the more often completed, the greater the
scientific substantiation of the theory
- collecting of facts: observation must be value-free and
without bias
- empirical laws can be formulated on the basis of the facts
→ express a general validity → laws do not explain, but
describe reality
- theory: needed for explanations, provide deeper insight
into the supposed reality → a good theory is characterized
by its ability to predict
- hypotheses (about reality) can be derived from the
theory, predictions can be based on hypotheses → theory
must be modified if predictions do not come true
- scientific article: not chronological, but a logical
reconstruction of a scientific experiment (‘recipe’ that can
be checked)
Ethos of science by Merton (sociologist) → 4 norms how science should be like
Communism: knowledge shared property (common ownership of scientific knowledge)
Universalism: neutral observations (objective and logical consistent)
Disinterestedness: have no ideological motivations (no influence from emotional, ideological,
commercial or other interests)
Organized Scepticism: be permanently critical
Verification
- model all science after natural science
,- neutral observations, mathematical techniques
- science achieves objective knowledge of truth based on neutral observations
- criterion proper scientific statements: a statement S is properly scientific just in case S can be
verified, i.e., when it is possible to establish that S is true
- neutral statements basis for laws and theories → objective knowledge of truth
Problem 1: Theory-ladenness of observation → no universalism
- observation is not a passive recording process but requires a theory from the start → to describe an
observation, you therefore need some form of framework
- observations are not only determined by the object, but also by our visual system, neural
processing of sensory input, our language and other things we already know/believe/hope → other
theories we believe
- what we see: not just points and dots, but theoretically embedded and interpreted objects
Problem 2: Universal statements → no universalism
- induction: from particulars (examined objects) to universals (unexamined objects)
- we assume that nature is uniform, but we are not justified, because we can imagine a non-uniform
world → universal statements are informed by a subjective assumption
Problem 3: ‘underdetermination’ of theory by data → no disinterestedness
- multiple theories possible by the same data
- external virtues (like testability and being explanatory): cannot discriminate between competing
theories → empirical equivalence → look at internal virtues
- internal virtues: like entrenchment, explanatory cooperation, simplicity
- choosing of a fitting theory has at least some subjective elements
Falsification by Karl Popper
- universal statements cannot always have an empirical foundation
- refutation and confirmation: we should not derive general statements from concrete cases, but the
other way around
- from general statement → concrete case (singular statement)
- requirements on quality of experimental research (e.g. must be possible to reproduce the results)
→ singular statements can either confirm or refute the theory
- scientific theories and hypotheses are falsifiable when it is possible to refute/falsify the theory with
observations or derive testable statements from it
- theory/hypothesis that appears to be supported by facts may be unscientific because it does not
produce refutable statements
- conjecture (vermoeden) leads to theories, refutation leads to improvement of those theories
Corroboration: a theory never gets accepted ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, but surviving several
different tests might strengthen its position
- science does not begin with neutral observations
- science begins with problems: phenomena
- science solves them: forming hypotheses → testing hypothesis → upon falsification: reject theory
- a theory T is scientific just in case T can be falsified, i.e., when it is possible to refute T, to tell in
which event T is false (it should therefore be testable and specific)
- scientific theory must not only give explanations retrospectively, but also make (preferably) precise
(risky) predictions that are testable → Popper believed that this would
demarcate real scientific endeavours from pseudoscientific
- pro: falsification is deductively valid
, Problem 1: what to do with undesirable consequences
Problem 2: hypotheses never tested in isolation (testing different things at the same time) → which
element to blame?
- blame the hypothesis
- blame the number of laboratory animals, the math/statistics, logic, measuring apparatus, the air
pressure
Problems of falsification
- which hypothesis on trial → subjective → no disinterestedness
- falsification → critical stance (problem 1) → organized scepticism?
towards peers: yes
towards oneself: no
Paradigms by Thomas Kuhn (physicist and science historian)
- not normative approach, but descriptive → not science as it should be, but science as it is
- shows how science actually develops
- critique on idea of progress during ‘normal science’ (standardly defined as): development-by-
accumulation
- paradigm: universally recognized scientific achievements that, for a time, provide model problems
and solutions for a community of practitioners → a framework in which scientists do their work
- refers to the set of problems, examples, methods, techniques, rules and assumptions that are share
and used within a scientific community
- schooling might be considered promotion of paradigms
- examples: heliocentrism, generatio spontanea, Newtonian mechanics, Einsteinian relativity theory,
evolutionary theory, caloric theory
- scientific knowledge does not evolve but comes stagewise
1. Pre-scientific stage → shocking, controversial, but not yet big successes and/or broad acceptance
→ much foundational research
- often sparked by some initial success
- explanatory (Darwin on variation, adaptation and selection)
- predictive (Newton and planetary orbits)
- examples: sociology (what is a social group?), cyborgism (fixing impairments or delivering
improvements?), environmentalism (socio-ecologic and natural interdependency)
2. Normal science → scientist work on the paradigm
- aim/task scientist: to maintain the paradigm
- theories are not refuted, but existing theories are refined and confirmed (logical empiricism)
- during normal science agreement on:
- axioms: starting point for further reasoning/arguments
- problems: what is the exact field of inquiry
- methods: how to conduct experiment, what
equipment
→ anomalies: small problems for the paradigm
3. Crisis: anomalies
- anomaly type 1: misfit of (empirical) data
- anomaly type 2: missing empirical observations
- too many anomalies: scientific crisis
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, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed 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 hannahkersbergen. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €5,99. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 83662 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen
