Samenvatting
Summary All Literature of Theory of Science
- Instelling
- Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (RuG)
I summarised all the articles (which were very tough to get through) and I achieved a 6 as my grade.
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 4 van de 38 pagina's
Voorbeeld 4 van de 38 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Theory of Science Summary of LiteratureWeek 1
What is this thing called science?
CH1
Science is derived from the facts – will be questioned in this book
What is the nature of these facts?
How do we access these facts?
Widely held view that science is based on facts
facts are presumed to be claims about the world that can be directly established by a
careful, unprejudiced use of the senses.
Science is to be based on what we can see, hear, and touch, rather than on personal
opinions or speculative imaginings.
Different opinions:
Accept the facts and build the theory to fit them
Empiricists -> all knowledge should be derived from ideas implanted in the mind by
way of sense perception
Positivists -> knowledge should be derived from the facts of experience
Both; knowledge should in some way be derived from the facts arrived at by
observation
Issues involved in claim that science is derived from the facts
Nature of these facts and how scientists are meant to have access to them
Laws and theories that constitute our knowledge are derived from the facts once
they have been obtained.
Components of the stand on the facts assumed to be the basis of science
a) Facts are directly given to careful, unprejudiced observers via the senses
b) Facts are prior to and independent of theory
c) Facts constitute a firm and reliable foundation for scientific knowledge
Visual experiences are not determined solely by the object viewed
Two observers need not to always see the same thing
“There is more to seeing than meets the eyeball” – Hanson
What we see depends on the knowledge, experience, and expectations one has
Facts that may provide a suitable base for a theory should be in the form of a statement, not
a question
The formulation of observation statements presupposes significant knowledge, and
the search for relevant observable facts in science is guided by that knowledge.
Any view to the effect that scientific knowledge is based on the facts acquired by
observation must allow that the facts as well as the knowledge are fallible and subject to
correction and that scientific knowledge and the facts on which it might be said to be based
are interdependent
,Article 1; removal of Pluto from the class of planets and homosexuality from the class of
psychiatric disorders; a comparison
Similarities between homosexuality being classified a psychiatric disorder and Pluto being
classified a planet
- Many people became committed to the classification for a variety of reasons
- Constructs were abstractions that grouped heterogeneous entities together
Where should authority reside if a scientific community cannot agree on how to resolve a
controversy?
If it is practical for the scientific community to allow disagreement and not force a
decision, it should.
Most important aspect of this decision is that members of the wider scientific
community must perceive the process as fair.
Why did Pluto get removed?
Discovery of Eris raised question on whether Pluto was a planet. Vote on whether
Pluto is planet decided that Pluto is a dwarf planet.
Considerations whether homosexuality is a mental disorder
Highly prevalent
Indistinguishable from heterosexual men
Social discrimination justified by the label of mental disorder - Personal encounters
with homosexuals
Spitzer argued against homosexual being mental disorder because they lacked general
impairment social functioning
This is solving classification problems by proposing a new definition
Difference between astronomy and psychiatry is that there are fewer consequences if
astronomers decide to leave a classificatory dilemma unsettled. Many people were greatly
affected by the classification of homosexuality as a disorder.
Research vs. tradition (who should decide?)
Reputations are earned by proving oneself in competitive processes.
Committee members should have knowledge/ experience about classification issues.
Any scientific discipline can be subject to such complications if
a) it relies on abstract construct that classify a heterogenous group as a single kind
b) the classification problems have psychological, social, or economic significance
c) the current classification does not satisfactorily account for all the data.
Disciplines should have a fair and systematic way of choosing experts to whom authority is
given.
The integrity of this process (choice of experts and approach of experts to making
decisions) does not assure agreement but is essential to the continued authority of
scientific community itself.
, Week 2
What is this thing called science?
CH5
Context: this chapter focuses on the idea of falsificationism (Karl Popper, what it means,
what are good theories and why falsification is important)
Karl Popper
Advocate for falsificationism
Popper started doubting the idea that science is derived from facts because Freud
and Marx supported their theory by shaping ‘facts’ in a way it supported their
theories.
Genuine scientific theories rule out a range of observable states of affairs – arriving
at his key idea that theories are falsifiable.
Observation is guided by and predisposes theory
Falsificationism
Some theories are shown to be false due to contradicting findings
The falsity of universal statements can be deduced from suitable singular
statements.
It is possible to perform logical deductions starting from singular observation
statements as premises, to arrive at the falsity of universal laws and theories by
logical deduction.
Hypothesis is falsifiable if there exists a logically possible observation statement or
set of observation statements that are inconsistent with it.
Falsificationists demand that scientific hypotheses are falsifiable because only by
ruling out a set of logically possible observation statements you can make one
informative.
Sophisticated falsificationism is a form of falsificationism in which claims are evaluated
statistically, as opposed to naive falsificationism, which takes an absolutist perspective.
Good theories
A very good theory will be one that makes very wide-ranging claims about the world,
and which is consequently highly falsifiable but when tested resists falsification.
Only those theories that can be shown to be true or probably true are to be
admitted into science.
It can never be said of a theory that it is true, however well it has withstood rigorous
tests, but it can hopefully be said that a current theory is superior to its predecessors
in the sense that it is able to withstand tests that falsified those predecessors
Adlerian theory
one handles out of feelings of inferiority
an example of a theory that is not falsifiable.
they are guilty of the fortune-teller evasion.
A set of observations that would serve to falsify a law or theory would serve as potential
falsifiers of that law or theory.
Highly falsifiable theories should be preferred over less falsifiable ones
, Steps of a falsifiable theory:
1. Science starts with a problem associated with the explanation of the behaviour of
some aspects of the world or universe
2. Falsifiable hypotheses are formed by scientists as solutions to a problem
3. Hypotheses are criticized and tested
4. Hypotheses withstood range of tests successfully -> new hypotheses
CH6
Context: this chapter talks about modifications in research, what this means for falsification
as well as bold hypothesis and novel statements which is basically a counter argument to a
widely accepted theory. Also inductivism and falsificationism are compared
A hypothesis should be more falsifiable than the one for which it is offered as a
replacement.
Emphasis on the growth of science, switches the focus of attention from the merits
of a single theory to the relative merits of competing theories.
a newly proposed theory will be acceptable as worthy if it is more falsifiable than its
rival, and especially if it predicts a new kind of phenomenon not touched on by its
rival.
Ad hoc modification = modification in a theory that has no testable consequences that were
not already testable consequences of the unmodified theory
protects a theory against falsificationism
The falsificationist wishes to reject ad hoc hypotheses and to encourage the proposal of
bold hypotheses as potential improvements on falsified theories.
o A bold hypothesis is one that goes against what is accepted to be true at the
time
If either kind of conjecture fails an observational or experimental test it will be
falsified, and if it passes such a test, it will be confirmed.
Significant advances will be marked by confirmation of bold conjectures or
falsification of cautious conjectures (= informative).
Opposite is confirmation of cautious conjecture or falsification of bold conjecture.
Bold hypotheses lead to novel, testable predictions.
Confirming novel predictions resulting from bold conjectures are very important for
growth in science – as it challenges the current idea – allowing for new
advancements
Major comes about when:
o a bold conjecture is confirmed
o when a cautious conjecture is falsified
The confirmation of a bold conjecture will involve the falsification of some part of
the background knowledge.
The aim of science is to falsify theories and to replace them by better theories that
demonstrate to withstand a test. Confirmation is important because it states that
the new theory is an improvement of the older one.
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 fhcambergen. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €9,99. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 83637 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen