100% tevredenheidsgarantie Direct beschikbaar na betaling Zowel online als in PDF Je zit nergens aan vast
logo-home
Samenvatting boeken (Pigilucci, Okasha, Blackburn, DeGrazia, Garvey) + Lectures Philosophy of Science and Ethics €4,49   In winkelwagen

Samenvatting

Samenvatting boeken (Pigilucci, Okasha, Blackburn, DeGrazia, Garvey) + Lectures Philosophy of Science and Ethics

 29 keer bekeken  3 keer verkocht

Een samenvatting van Pigilucci (2010) – Pseudoscience, Okasha - Philosophy of Science, Blackburn – Being Good, DeGrazia – Animal Ethics ch 1-7, Garvey – environmental ethics ch 1-6 en Lectures 1-12. Het document is in het Engels.

Voorbeeld 4 van de 39  pagina's

  • 12 april 2021
  • 39
  • 2018/2019
  • Samenvatting
Alle documenten voor dit vak (18)
avatar-seller
floor-vc

Beschikbare oefenvragen

Oefenvragen 15 Oefenvragen
€7,89 0 verkocht

Enkele voorbeelden uit deze set oefenvragen

1.

What is the use of the probability scale of knowledge?

Antwoord:  The use of the probability scale is that it gives a clear visual representation of the scale of knowledge. It shows which methods are very certain (deduction, induction, abduction) and which are not (Folk knowledge, religious beliefs). It shows which methods are proven to work and which have never proved to generate knowledge which brings us closer to the truth.

2.

Why is the axiomatic deductive method doomed to fail scientific enterprise?

Antwoord:  An axiomatic deductive system is a syllogism which uses an axiom as one of its premises in order to get to a conclusion. An axiom is based on an assumption which is not 100% certain, so it is not based on deduction, but rather on induction. If the axiom is not certain then the entire reasoning which comes behind It is also weak(er). For example: Descartes was a believer in god while he also doubted everything, including his own senses. He said that God was good, and if God created humans, humans must also be good. So that would mean that his senses would not deceive him since they were good. The reasoning is sound, but the axiom it was based on (‘God exists, and he is good’) is not.

3.

Why is Bruno Latour’s analysis of the scientific practice problematic for the philosophy of Karl Popper?

Antwoord:  Popper believed that a scientific theory was only a good one if it could be falsified. However, Latour discovered when he was studying physicists while writing ‘Laboratory Life’ that many of their discoveries were wrong (didn’t fit in the scientific paradigm). He concluded that their reality was socially constructed. This does not fit with the philosophy of Karl Popper because scientific methods are often disregarded/ignored (‘falsified’) because they don’t fit within the scientific mainstream or what they wanted to observe. This can be seen as trying until they accidentally got it right—and that is not what Popper would have envisioned science to be.

4.

Why is Pigliucci fiercely opposing pseudoscience?

Antwoord:  Because pseudo sciences have proven not to work yet people still believe in them. Pseudo sciences (astrology, homeopathy, etc) still attract millions which also spend a lot of money on it. It does not make sense to believe in it. If you tested someone that claimed for example to be a dowser, their results wouldn’t be any better than those achieved by mere chance. Still, there are many supporters. Pigliucci is mainly annoyed by people who believe in pseudoscience—he goes to extreme lengths to explain why certain practices (in the chapters we read astrology, for example) are untrustworthy and not real sciences.  Pigliucci believes that pseudoscience belief is dangerous for society. For example, anti-vaccinaters which believe that vaccines cause autism. They endanger the community because they risk the spread of diseases like mump and polio.

5.

Explain the problem of irrelevance.

Antwoord:  Hume explains the problem of irrelevance. The explanation for a certain phenomenon should contain information which is relevant to the phenomenon’s occurrence. When this doesn’t happen, it makes the explanation unclear.  For example, there comes a man to the maternity ward, afraid he is pregnant because he forgot his birth control. The doctor can explain why he is not pregnant (he took his medicine, etc) but it is much easier to explain it by saying that he can’t become pregnant because he is a man. It is irrelevant to explain why he isn’t pregnant – because it physically impossible for a man to become pregnant.

6.

Explain the problem of underdetermination.

Antwoord:  The problem of underdetermination is that anti-realists find that scientists are too quickly content with the reason for a certain unobservable phenomenon that they find. Anti-realists think that there is a multitude of incompatible reasons for a certain phenomenon which are equally plausible. They think that scientific theories are underdetermined by the empirical data. The data can be accounted for alternative theories.

7.

What is the problem of biological determination?

Antwoord:  The problem of biological determination is that it is very hard to classify organisms in the ‘correct’ species. Darwin thought that the species groupings were arbitrary. However, it was discovered that species are reproductively isolated, meaning that they can only breed with specimens from their own species.

8.

What is the difference between scientism and scientific naturalism?

Antwoord:  Scientism is a form of science worship, that there is too much reliance on science. They believe that everything can be explained through science, however, science cannot discern between good or bad and other questions which are quintessentially philosophical.  Scientific naturalism is the belief that humans are a part of nature, not separate from it as once believed. Russel said that all knowledge should be attained through scientific methods. However, this makes philosophy abundant. Philosophers believe that phil has its own methods which leads to truths which science cannot find.  The difference is that in scientism, they believe that science is the only way to true knowledge, but within naturalism, they believe that there are multiple methods to get to the truth.

POSE Summary


Summary Philosophy of Science and Ethics

Contents:
1. Pigilucci (2010) – Pseudoscience
2. Okasha - Phil of Science Ch 1-3
3. Okasha - Phil of Science ch 4-7
4. Lectures 1-5

5. Blackburn – Being Good
6. DeGrazia – Animal Ethics ch 1-7
7. Garvey – environmental ethics ch 1-6
8. Lectures 6-12

,POSE Summary


Pigilucci (2010) – Pseudoscience_________________________________________________

Pseudoscience definition: sounds like science, is not science.

Everyone has the right to be irrational, (e.g. listening to an astrologer, etc) but rampant
irrationality in a society can be highly wasteful and destructive.

Superstition can be dangerous to the point of lethality (AIDS Denialism)

Astrology is a good example of pseudoscience: it can be tested
- Star constellations don’t exist because they are all at vastly different distances from
earth.

Ufology: study of report of UFO’s

Logical fallacy:
- Post hoc ergo propter hoc: after this, therefore because this

Occam’s razor: explanation which requires the least amount of unwarranted assumptions

Ufologists defense mechanisms:
- Calling on an ‘authority’ → these often do not have expertise in atmospheric or
astronomical phenomena.
- Affirming the consequences → ‘the universe is so large there must be other life
forms, so they must be visiting us’
- Bandwagon appeal → ‘so many people believe in UFO’s, there must be something
real to it’ i.e. widespread beliefs which aren’t necessarily true (E.g. earth centre
universe)
- Conspirational approach → ‘the government knows but won’t tell us’
- Salvational appeal → crosses the path of religion, ‘they are here to save us’

When one runs a very large number of experiments, one is bound to find significant (but
very small) results even though nothing paranormal is going on, as long as there is even a
very small bias in the experimental setup.

,POSE Summary



Okasha - Philosophy of Science Ch 1-3___________________________________________
Chapter 1: what is science?

Science uses different methods than humanities, namely experiments. However, scientists
also rely on observation and theory construction.

Scientific revolution: 1500-1750

1.1 origins of modern science
Aristotle
- At first very important
- Geocentric view
- 4 elements

Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
- Copernican revolution
- Attacked the geocentric model of the universe
o Heliocentric model
- Led to the development of the works of Johannes Kepler and Galileo Galilei

Galileo Galilei
- Pioneer of modern physics and science
- Galileo’s law of free fall (everything falls at the same speed)

Renee Descartes (1596-1650)
- Mechanical philosophy

Isaac Newton (1643-1727)
- Agreed with MP: universe consists of particles in motion
- Newton’s laws
- New framework of physics for the next 200 years, replacing Cartesian physics
- However, not applicable with quantum mechanics and the relativity theory
- Book: mathematical principles of Natural Philosophy (1687)

Charles Darwin
- Book: Origin of Species (1859)
o Not by God
o Natural selection

1.2 What is philosophy of science?
A scientist might yield the same results a couple of times and consider it right. The
philosopher will wonder why they would assume that future repetitions will have the same
result and how they know this is true.
- Question assumptions scientists take for granted

, POSE Summary


1.3 Science and pseudo-science
Karl Popper
- Fundamental feature of a scientific theory is that it should be falsifiable → if it can
be disproved. If a theory cannot be proved wrong, it is not a good theory
- Quite simplistic
o Marxists stuck to communism, even if it didn’t work (Popper would call this
pseudoscience)
o Adams and Leverrier figured out that using Newtons theory of gravity and
figured out it didn’t work on Uranus – stuck to the theory and figured out
that there must be another planet (pluto)  pseudoscience according to
Popper but he’s not right, this is good science


Chapter 2: Scientific inference
1.1 Deduction and induction
Deductive inference: truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion
Inductive inference: premises of the inference is true, yet the conclusion false
- Move from premises about objects that have been examined to conclusions about
the same sorts of objects which haven’t been examined
o E.g. they tested a large number of people for an extra chromosome with
Down syndrome – thus all people with DS must have an extra chromosome
even though they haven’t been checked.
o All tested X have been Y, so the other X are also Y

2.2 Humes Problem
David Hume (1711-1776)
- Argued that the use of induction cannot be rationally justified at all
- Based on uniformity of nature (all similar objects will act similar)

- For to argue that induction is trustworthy because it has worked well up to now is to
reason inductively.  Hume’s fundamental point, because he already doesn’t like
induction
- ‘Hume’s problem of induction’

2.3 Inference to the best explanation
Inference to the best explanation (IBE): type of inductive inference
- The explanation which most logically fits
- = reasoning from one’s data to a theory or hypothesis that explains the data
- A good explanation should be simple (parsimonious) → one cause is more likely than
two
- Also called abduction
- Educated guess

2.4 causal inference
Correlation does not mean causation
- RCT (randomized controlled trial) → used a lot in medicine

Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:

Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews

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

Snel en makkelijk kopen

Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.

Focus op de essentie

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 floor-vc. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.

Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?

Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €4,49. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.

Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?

4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 81113 samenvattingen verkocht

Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen

Start met verkopen
€4,49  3x  verkocht
  • (0)
  Kopen