These are my notes for the Philosophy of Science course. I aimed to make them inviting, rather than dull. I also include color coding: blue: (sub)titles
yellow words: vocabulary and/or their definition
orange: examples and explanations
pink: important
green: message from me to you, the studier
...
The Scientific Revolution
• 1550 - 1700
◦ a fast change in 150 years
◦ before this: religion had all the answers > though all major questions had been answered
Astronomy
• what was believed:
◦ we were one planet among many
‣ earth was the center of the universe
‣ earth was surrounded by crystal spheres (fixed stars)
• Copernican revolution: the sun is the center of the universe
◦ by Copernicus
◦ he assumed this to calculate the movements of planets
◦ worked so well people figured it was true
• Newton introduced gravity
◦ to explain why the stars don't fall and why we orbit the sun
‣ the sun is so massive so it influences the other planets
◦ took away the crystal sphere theory
• Galileo discovered telescope
◦ found mountains and craters on the moon
‣ moon was thought to be a perfect sphere
◦ prosecuted because of moon and believing Copernican theory
‣ forced to say sun is not center
Chemistry
• what was believed:
◦ everything in the universe is made of earth,
fire, wind and water (4 elements) FIRE
not dry
◦ humans are made of the four elements in a
AIR EARTH
different composition than a plant
wet cold
• gradually realized there are elements and what
WATER
they are made of
◦ molecules are made of atoms
• medicine:
◦ people left their body to science
◦ started cutting people up after they died
◦ figured out how the heart works
,Psychology
• what was believed:
◦ the combination of elements also decides health and who we are (psychology)
◦ religion forbade cutting into people so no understanding of human body
result: clash between church and science
◦ church had the monopoly on science
◦ it was thought that everything can be found in the bible
◦ emphasis on not questioning gods word
◦ some were prosecuted
• the clash of so many different world views lead to the question: what is knowledge?
◦ everyone's beliefs were at stake
The rise of skepticism
(Montaigne was skepticist)
plato: there are three conditions that are individually necessary and jointly sufficient
- belief: you must believe x to know x
- truth: x must be true
- justification: your belief must be justified
justified true beliefs = knowledge
Skepticism : we do not have any knowledge
• we may believe something
• and they may be true
• but there is no way to justify
◦ your senses are not reliable (think optical illusions)
◦ your brain decides what you see or hear etc
knowledge based on observation - but observation not reliable
Two historically influential answers
a. rationalism
b. empiricism
Rationalism
• we can be certain about things
Descartes: "I doubt therefore I think, I think therefore I am"
cogito argument
◦ i doubt about everything, but the fact that i doubt means i exist - in order to be able to doubt
◦ start with what you know for sure then deduce
mathematical beliefs
• 1+1=2
distinct
clear t ideas
use deduction to infer
knowledge
, deduction: if you know the premises are true,
you are absolutely certain that the conclusion
is also true
explanation ^:
P1: men are mortal
P2: socrates is a man
C: socrates is mortal
Empiricism
• sensory experience is the source of all knowledge
• tabula rasa: there is no innate knowledge
• empirical knowledge: knowledge based on observation
• typically pro-science: best way to investigate our world
Bacon:
• nihilist
• there is nothing in our mind that was not first in our senses
• use induction to obtain knowledge
◦ induction: if you are certain that the premises are true, it becomes more likely that the
conclusion is true
Two problems for empiricists
1. Skepticism: how do we know what we see is true
◦ we only see an interpretation of the world
◦ everything is subject to how your senses perceive something
‣ how do we know what the original actual, "thing" is?
2. problem of induction
• how do we know induction is a reliable source for reasoning
◦ how do i know that a plus b is c
• answer: because it has worked well in the past
◦ problem with answer: you use induction to justify induction
‣ when hand in assignment: "don't use wiki" "you use wiki to prove wiki is reliable"
How would empiricists respond to rationalists?
Everything that you know comes from your senses
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 Nicole456. 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.
