100% tevredenheidsgarantie Direct beschikbaar na betaling Zowel online als in PDF Je zit nergens aan vast
logo-home
Summary 2.2 Problem 6: Philosophy of Science €5,49   In winkelwagen

Samenvatting

Summary 2.2 Problem 6: Philosophy of Science

 2 keer bekeken  0 keer verkocht

These are the notes of Problem 6 of course 2.2: History of Psychology. These notes consist of notes from literature as well as additional class notes, diagrams and tables. Using these notes, I obtained a grade 7.0 in the final exam. Good luck!

Voorbeeld 2 van de 7  pagina's

  • 27 oktober 2022
  • 7
  • 2021/2022
  • Samenvatting
Alle documenten voor dit vak (9)
avatar-seller
akiestudholme
2.3 Problem 6: Philosophy of Science


Popper: Conjectures & Refutations

Popper’s Falsification

1) Knowledge is not justified

 We can never justify propositions/theories, bc can’t subject our theories to all
possible tests, so it’s always possible that one unconducted test might falsify
our theory
 Confirmation is not best method for arriving at truth, criticism is the best
method of error elimination. Knowledge only grows through the correcting of
our mistakes, and the best way to correct mistakes is to try to falsify our
theories. Theories that survive attempts of falsifying shouldn’t be ‘confirmed’,
bc other tests might show that they’re false

2) Knowledge is not true

 Knowledge is ‘truth-likeness’, bc it has survived attempts to falsify it. Just bc
a theory has survived attempts at falsification, doesn’t mean it is the final truth

3) Knowledge is not belief

 Knowledge is not subjective, but objective
 When knowledge claims are evaluated, they become objects of criticism
 Problems, theories, etc. exist independently of whether anyone believes them,
asserts them, etc.

How did Popper arrive at these conclusions?

 Popper was interested in demarcation issue: what distinguishes science from
pseudoscience? Specific question he wanted to answer was ‘what characterizes a true
empirical method of a pseudo-empirical method?’
 Problem w/pseudoscientific theories is that there are many confirmations for these
theories (due to confirmation bias, etc.). Some pseudoscientific theories are
constructed in a way that can explain any possible outcome, e.g., Freud’s theory.
 Science makes risky predictions
 Differences in research strategies between researchers who want to confirm or
disprove (falsification) theories. E.g., ‘Amsterdam is the only place where people
want to live’. Confirmationists will focus research on Amsterdam and conclude that
ppl do live there, so will confirm the theory – Popper says that this is a bad method.
Falsificationists will not focus on Amsterdam, but on other cities. If they conclude
that other ppl also live in these cities, they can conclude the theory is wrong. Popper:
error elimination is the only correct way of demonstrating science
 Theories may differ in degree to which they may be false/falsifiable
Predictive theories (measuring average IQ) are very falsifiable, as all outcome scores
except expected score (IQ = 100) lead to a falsifiable result. The more specific the
theory, the easier it is to falsify. The more universal the theory, the more

, falsifiable it is. “There is a Santa” = not falsifiable, bc we can’t observe all possible
space-time points
 Popper also valued severe testing, where we attempt to deduce most improbable
consequences of our theory, check whether these happen. E.g., if you want to falsify
the claim ‘Priests don’t swear’, it’s a more severe test to test them at a golf course
than in church. If we want to test that ‘Treatment x always cures depression’, it’s a
more severe test to treat severe depression rather than easy cases
 Popper: there is an inverse between logical probability of a theory & degree of
falsifiability. Tautologies (saying of same thing twice over in different words), e.g.,
‘All brown dogs are brown’ have logical probability of 1 (they are necessarily true),
but zero degree of falsifiability bc they exclude no observable states of affairs
On the other hand, highly falsifiable claims have a low logical probability, bc they
exclude many possible states of affairs, so it’s not logically probable that they will not
be refuted, e.g. ‘All objects near the earth accelerate at 9.8m/s’ is both highly
improbable & highly falsifiable.
Tautologies have no empirical content & highly falsifiable statements have no
empirical content

Science as Problem Solving

 Popper: ‘the history of science should be treated not as a history of theories, but as a
history of Problem-Situations’. Problems are the originating source of all scientific
inquiry and theories can only be understood in relation to their Problem-Situations
Good inquiry influences these problems to evolve into different and deeper problems
 Growth of knowledge = P1  TS1  EE  P2
 Initial problem (P1) gives rise to tentative solution (TS), which gives rise to error-
eliminating tests (EE), which gives rise to a new problem (P2). Inquiry begins & ends
with problems
 Popper’s view is in contrast with view of logical positivists, in which good scientist is
thought to start with no point of view/interest. Popper rejects view of scientist being
passive. Problems must come before observation & data collection
 Scientific problems can arise from philosophical problems. Philosophy can also
provide tentative solutions, although these will be vaguer. Philosophy, however,
differs from science in that the solution can never be falsified, only criticized (bc not
observable)
 Deductive reasoning > inductive reasoning
Criticism: deductive reasoning is always true, but it means that science doesn’t come
up with anything new


Paradoxes of induction

1) Lottery paradox
If you have 100 tickets, everyone’s chances of winning is same probability, but only
one person can win.
2) Paradox of Ravens
‘All ravens are black’ vs. ‘all non-black things are not ravens’ but this isn’t true
3) Green-blue paradox
All emeralds before 2100 are green, after they are blue
Criticism: you can only see limited amount of cases

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 akiestudholme. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.

Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?

Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €5,49. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.

Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?

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

Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 64438 samenvattingen verkocht

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

Start met verkopen
€5,49
  • (0)
  Kopen