Samenvatting
Summary - Chalmers: what is this thing called science?
- Instelling
- Universiteit Leiden (UL)
Summary what is this thing called science?
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 3 van de 25 pagina's
Voorbeeld 3 van de 25 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Gekoppeld boek
Titel boek:
Auteur(s):
- Uitgave:
- ISBN:
- Druk:
7 beoordelingen
Door: chaitalimukherjee • 3 jaar geleden
While it reads that it is a complete book summary, chapters 3, and 12 to 16 are missing.
Door: pbrosnannugent • 4 jaar geleden
Door: spbls • 4 jaar geleden
Missing 4 chapters of the book.
Door: chotineetu • 4 jaar geleden
Door: bettiangyan • 5 jaar geleden
Door: laura79 • 6 jaar geleden
Door: phelfrich99 • 6 jaar geleden
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Chapter 1Science as knowledge derived from the facts of experience.
- When it is claimed that science is special because it is based on the facts, the facts
are presumed to be claims about the world that can be directly established by a
careful, unprejudiced use of senses. Science is to be based on what we can see,
hear and touch rather than on personal opinions or speculative imaginings.
- Influential claim is that, as a matter of historical facts, modern science was born in
the early seventeenth century when the strategy of taking the facts of observation
seriously as the basis for science was first seriously adopted.
- Knowledge was based largely on authority, especially the authority of the
philosopher Aristotle and the authority of the Bible. It was only when this authority
was challenge by an appeal of experience, by pioneers of the new science such as
Galileo, that modern science became possible.
- It was an accepted axiom of Aristotle that the speed of falling bodies was regulated
by their respective weights.
- Until Galileo gave his denial and declared that weight had nothing to do with the
matter, and that two bodies of unequal weights would reach the ground at the same
moment.
- Two schools of thought that attend to formalise a common view of science, that
scientific knowledge is derived from the fact, are the Empiricist and the Positivists.
British empiricist:
- John Locke
- George Berkeley
- David Hume
They held that all knowledge should be derived from ideas implanted in the mind by the
way of sense perception.
- The Positivists, had a broader and less psychologically oriented view of what facts
amount to, but shared the view o the empiricists that knowledge should be derived
from the facts of experience.
- The Logical positivists were paying close attention to the logical form of the
relationship between scientific knowledge and the facts.
- Empiricists and Positivists shared the same view that scientific knowledge should
in some way be derived from the facts arrived at by observation.
There are two other distinct issues involved in the claim that science is derived from the
facts:
- The nature of these ‘facts’ and how scientists are meant to have access to them.
- How the laws and theories that constitute our knowledge are derived from the facts
once they have been obtained.
Three components of the stand on the facts assumed to be the basis of science in the
common view can be distinguished:
1. Facts are directly given to careful, unprejudiced observers via the senses.
2. Facts are prior to and independent theory.
3. Facts constitute a firm and reliable foundation for scientific knowledge.
Seeing is believing
Sight is the sense most extensively used to observe the world, and party for convenience.
1
,The most important components of the human eye are the lens and the retina, the latter
acting as a screen on which images of objects external to the eye are formed by the lens.
1. Rays of light from a viewed object pass from the object to the lens via intervening
medium.
2. These rays are refracted by the material of the lens in such way that they are brought
to a focus on the retina, so forming an image of the object.
3. Optic nerves pass from the retina to the central cortex of the brain. These carry
information concerning the light striking the various regions of the retina.
4. It is the re-coding of information by the brain that constitutes the seeing of the object
by the human observer.
Two points are strongly suggested the sense of sight that are incorporated into the
common or empiricists view of science.
- A human observer has more or less direct access to knowledge of some facts about
the world insofar as they are recorded by the brain in the cat of seeing.
- Two normal observers viewing the same object or scene from the same place will
‘see’ the same thing.
Visual experiences not determine solely by the viewed object
Two normal observers viewing the same object from the same place under the same
physical circumstances do not necessarily have identical visual experiences, even
though the images on their respective retinas may be virtually identical.
What observers see, the subjective experience that they undergo, when viewing an
object or scene is not determined solely by the images on their retinas but depends also
on their experience, knowledge and expectations of the observer.
- The experiences and skilled observer does not have perceptual experiences identical
to those of the untrained novice when the two confront the same situation. This
clashes with a literal understanding of the claim that perceptions are given in a
straightforward way via the senses. They might see the same thing but interpret them
differently.
- Regarding perception, the only things in which an observer has direct and immediate
contact are his or her experiences.
However, although the images in our retina form part of the cause of what we see,
another very important part of the cause is the inner state of our minds or brains, which
will itself depend on:
- cultural upbringing
- knowledge
- expectations
and will not be determined solely by the physical properties of our eyes and the scene
observed.
Under a wide variety of circumstances, what we see in various situations remains fairly
stable. The dependence of what we see on the state of our minds or brains is not so
sensitive as to make communications, and science, impossible.
Observable facts expressed as statements
2
, - Fact: Statement that expressed the fact and it can also refer to the state of affairs
referred to by such statements.
It is necessary to distinguish statements of facts from the perceptions that might
occasion the acceptance of those statements as facts.
- Before, an observer can formulate and assent to an observation, he or she must be
in possession of the appropriate conceptual framework and knowledge of how to
appropriately apply it. Because the appropriate facts, formulated as statements,
presuppose quite a lot of knowledge about the issue.
- Thus, the recording of observable facts require more than the reception, in the form
of light rays, that impinge on the eye. It requires the knowledge of the appropriate
conceptual scheme and how to apply it.
- Statements of facts are not determined in a straightforward way by sensual stimuli,
and observation statements presuppose knowledge, so it cannot be the case that we
first establish the facts and then derive our knowledge from them.
Why should facts precede theory?
Facts must be established prior to the derivation of scientific knowledge from them because:
- First establish facts and then build your theory to fit them. Both the fact that our
perceptions depends to some extent on our prior knowledge and hence on our state
of preparedness and our expectations and the fact that observation statements
presuppose the appropriate conceptual framework indicate that it is a demand that is
impossible to live up to.
- Formulation of observation statements presuppose significant knowledge, and that
the search for relevant observable facts in science is guided by that knowledge.
- Neither acknowledge necessarily undermines the claim that knowledge has a factual
basis established by observations.
- The fact that the knowledge is necessary for the formulation of significant observation
statements still leaves open the question of which statements so formulated are born
out by observation and which are not.
- The idea that knowledge should be based on facts that are confirmed by observation
is not undetermined by the recognition that the formulation of the statements
describing those facts are knowledge-dependent.
The fallibility of observation statements
- The judgments of the truth or otherwise of an observation statement depends on the
knowledge that forms the background against which the judgment is made.
- 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.
- Scientific knowledge has a special status in part because it is founded on a secure
basis, solid facts firmly established by observation.
2 difficulties:
- Perception are influenced by the background and expectations of the observer.
- The judgments about the truth of observation statements depend on what is already
known and assumed.
Both kinds of difficulties suggests that maybe the observable basis for science is not as
3
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 stefanie016. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €3,49. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 82191 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen
