Reading Questions from lecture Philosophy of the Humanities
Week 1:Lecture
Ch. 1
1. Both philosophy of science and philosophy of humanities have a double
task, viz. a descriptive task and a normative task (pp. 16-18 Leezenberg 2018).
Explain these tasks.
- Descriptive task: just a description/explication of good scientific products/practices.
- Normative task: More than descriptive. Thus, it does include a description of good
science, but also provides an evaluation (e.g. why did you use a method? why was
this the right one to use?).
Ch. 3
2. What is the problem of demarcation (p. 91)?
- This problem includes the question: what distinguishes pseudoscience/opinion from
normal/good science?
3. Logical Empiricism endorsed a verification criterion of meaning (p. 77).
Explain what this criterion entails.
- The verification criterion of meaning is a way to distinguish good science from
pseudoscience. This uses a proposition formulated as such that it can be verified by
observations. Those propositions that can be verified hence have meaning. It is a
form of induction; gathering ever more observations to make a general
characterization/conclusion.
4. According to Popper, the verification criterion is useless for distinguishing
universal laws from metaphysical statements (p. 90). Explain Popper’s
argumentation for this claim.
- According to Popper, one cannot verify every instance covered by universal law. One
can never be sure that the next observation will not refute the universal law. You
cannot verify if all swans are white, maybe the next one you encounter is black. So,
for Popper verification is not a solution to the demarcation problem.
5. Popper endorsed falsifiability as a solution to the problem of demarcation (p. 91).
Explain what this criterion entails.
- Falsification is another way of distinguishing pseudoscience from good science. It
entails that a scientific proposition is formulated as such that it could be refuted by a
possible future observation. It uses deduction; it takes a theory and makes
falsification statements that exclude certain states of affair and these statements will
be tested. So, you deduce falsifiable statements from theories.
6. How does the inductive method of verification differ from the deductive
method of falsification (p. 92)?
- Induction is based on observations and from these observations a general conclusion
is made. And deduction already starts with a theory and then uses observations to
falsify it.
7. What is the key difference between an observation sentence (Logical
Empiricism) and a basic sentence (Popper) (p. 94)?
- an observation sentence states that observations are neutral. A basic sentence states
that observations are theory-laden and thus infected with theoretical presuppositions.
Both of them are used to test a theory.
Ch. 4
8. Kuhn distinguished two different meanings of the term paradigm (pp.
118-119). Which meanings?
- Exemplar: a showcase of good scientific research.
, - Disciplinary matrix: broader than the exemplar. namely, this includes the whole
package of good research practices, theories, etc. in a specific scientific field or
discipline in a specific time in history.
9. Kuhn’s notion of normal science contradicts Popper’s views on falsification (p.
119). Explain why this is the case.
- According to Kuhn, there is no real falsification (like in Popper’s sense) during periods
of normal science. Within Kuhn’s view there is just puzzle solving, which is used to
elaborate and refine theories, but not refute them and throw them overboard like
Popper says.
10. Kuhn argued that: “When paradigms enter, as they must, into a debate about
paradigm choice, their role is necessarily circular. Each group uses its own
paradigm in that paradigm’s defense.” (Kuhn 1962, p. 91; quoted in Leezenberg
2018, p. 122).Explain what Kuhn meant with his claim that the use of one’s own
paradigm in defending that paradigm is circular.
- You are situated within one paradigm and you do not use them against each other or
prefer one over the other. You stay in your paradigm and thus use your own paradigm
in your own defenses. You use this paradigm to ask and answer questions etc. You
do not compare. You only reject a paradigm when you already accepted another
paradigm that has had the ability to solve all the puzzles.
Week 2:lecture
Ch. 4
1. What does Foucault mean with the term episteme (p. 134)?
- The deep structure of knowledge. Each episteme includes conditions for the ordering
and acquisition of knowledge, based on certain principles that are seen in that time as
self-evident concerning the way the world is seen in that time. Foucault distinguishes
three epistemes; Renaissance, classical age, modern age.
2. What does Foucault mean with the term epistemic rupture (p. 134)?
- (this kind of resonates with the paradigm shift from Kuhn) An epistemic rupture
includes deep discontinuity in the structure of knowledge between epistemes. You
shift from one episteme to another whereby language, order and signs are used in a
completely different way. So, it includes a major conceptual shift in thinking about the
ordering and acquisition of knowledge.
3. Explain commonalities and differences between Foucault’s notion of an epistemic
rupture and Kuhn’s notion of a paradigm shift (p. 135).
- An epidemic rupture can be seen as a much broader term than the paradigm shift. A
paradigm shift encompasses discontinuity in one discipline and an epistemic rupture
includes discontinuity in all disciplines together. Also the time scale differs as multiple
paradigm shifts can happen within one and the same episteme.
4. Explain Foucault’s method for studying epistemes and epistemic ruptures (pp.
135-136).
- According to Foucault, an episteme has three characteristics; order, signs and
language. Thereby, differences between epistemes can be seen in the way order,
signs and language are used/conceptualized in a whole different way. Each episteme
includes a major conceptual shift in their use.
5. Kant distinguished between a knowing subject and a known or knowable object
and applied this distinction to man itself, viz. the distinction between man as
empirical object and man as transcendental or knowing subject (p. 141). Explain
what these distinctions entail.
- Kant was the first to make a distinction between both man as object of study and man
as knowing subject that possess empirical knowledge. The rise of the humanities was
