College aantekeningen

philosophy of science lecture notes, summary's of readings and book

1 keer verkocht

Vak
Philosophy of Science (S_PS)

Instelling
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU)

philosophy of science lecture notes, summaries of readings and book, as well as practice questions and aditional coments

[Meer zien]

Voorbeeld 4 van de 119 pagina's

Bekijk voorbeeld

Geupload op 4 april 2024
Aantal pagina's 119
Geschreven in 2023/2024
Type College aantekeningen
Docent(en) Lecture
Bevat Alle colleges

PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

WEEK 1
LECTURE 1 – INTRO
Science vs. non-science
• What distinguishes science from non-science?
• What’s special about scientific knowledge as opposed to other kinds of information or
knowledge?
=> This is one example of a philosophy of science question

Philosophy of science
 Philosophy of science – investigating the social sciences
• What distinguishes science from non-science?
• How does one get from observations to theories, models, explanations?
• What is a (good) scientific theory, explanation, model?
• Is scientific knowledge objective? What is objectivity?
• What role is there for values in science, if any?
• Are there ethical or other limits to science?
• What goals should science serve?

 Social science – investigating the social world

The demarcation problem
Logical positivism;
• Vienna Circle: group of scientists (in early 20th century Vienna) reflecting on philosophical
questions about science
• Aim: development of a strictly scientific worldview– they believed that real knowledge
should be based on observations
• Against speculative philosophy, religious ideas, traditional worldviews

Side note
• Why the word ‘positivism’?
• From ‘positive’, in the sense of restricting self to ‘what is posited’, ‘what is given’, ‘what is
laid down’, - don’t go beyond empirical
- not in the sense of ‘happy’, ‘in a good mood’, ’constructive

Ideals – 2 needed things
• Strict empiricism: knowledge can only come from (empirical) observation – senses; eyes..
- No place for speculative claims that are not based on observation!
• Use of formal logic and mathematics to create an ideal and precise language for science
- To guard against unwarranted terminology and against leaps to conclusions and
unsupported theories

Core ideas 1;
Analytic vs. synthetic statements

,  Analytic: true/false just on the basis of the meaning of the words used. (conventions
for how we use words and symbols) – it needs to be part of the definition, all
definitions
• Examples ‘All bachelors are unmarried.’
• Examples ‘5 + 7 = 12’
• Examples ‘A ‘lusitanism’ is a word or expression derived from the Portuguese
language and incorporated into another language.
• Definitions, logic, and mathematics are all analytic statements - Empirical scientific
research is the only way of determining the truth or falsity of these statements

 Synthetic: true/false on the basis of the meaning of the words used and what the
world is like. (describe the world)
• Examples ‘Marc is a bachelor.’
• Examples ‘All polar bears are white.’ – not part of definition/ meaning of bear that
it might be right that’s why its not analytic
-empirical sciences are concerned with synthetic statements

• Synthetic statements describe the world, analytic ones only concern conventions for how we
use words and symbols

Core ideas 2:
• An ideal and precise language of science
 Gate-keeping: only statements that are firmly based on empirical observation belong
in the language of science
 The verifiability criterion of meaning: the meaning of a synthetic statement is its
method of verification – in order for a statement to be scientific it needs to be
verifiable (you need to describe something that can be done that describes what is true
or false)
Verifiable (meaningful) or not?
• ‘This rock falls down with an acceleration of 9,8 m/s2.’ – verifiable
• ‘Voter turnout in the last election was at an historical low.’ – verifiable ( assuming
we have the historical record)
• ‘This culture is strongly matriarchal.’- it isn’t but it can be made into one
• ‘The nothing nothings.’ – not verifiable
• ‘God is almighty, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. – not verifiable because not
observable

• Verifiability as demarcation criterion
•Only statements that satisfy the verifiability criterion are scientific, other statements
are non-scientific – to show whether true of false + draws line between science
• (Logic, mathematics, and statistics help to formulate scientific statements in a
precise manner.)

Turtorial definition –
- Verification criteria – (verifiability) – empirically based, it is necessary that its
observable proof not only theoretical.
-  the meaning of a sentence consist in its method of verification, scientific
statements must always be connected to empirical observations (something that
happed and is real)

, - Method – induction; logical method out of many observed methods you can draw a
conclusion (all swans are white- you make a specific number of observations and base
your results on that induction problem!)
- Problem of verifiability; draws conclusions before knowing the correct result, this is
done by reconfirmation of theory, without allowing opportunity to be wrong (over
generalising)(problem for poper)

Core ideas 3:
 Inductive method: from observations to general theories and empirical regularities /
laws
• Observations give rise to hypotheses and theories
• And they serve to support / confirm them
• Let the data (observations) ‘speak for themselves’
• Example: behaviourism 
- Dog is conditioned to show responses
• Exclusive focus on observable behaviour in response
to external stimuli (In psychology)
• Nothing about internal cognitive processes
• Because those are unobservable / unverifiable

Karl Popper’s core ideas
• Fallibility and tentativeness of human knowledge
• Dogmatic vs. critical thinking – science is about looking for errors and trying to correct
them/ to prove theory's wrong
- Believed all can make mistakes – scientific knowledge always tentative

Problem of induction;
• Reasoning from individual observations to general conclusions is logically invalid.
- inductive reasoning; go from a limited number of observations to a general
conclusion ( not strictly valid as you make a limited number of observations eg; all
swans are white)
• So induction can never completely support general scientific laws and theories.
- Popper: no use for induction in science! – as there is always some uncertainty

Falsifiability as demarcation criterion;
• Scientific knowledge is falsifiable knowledge. – you need to be able to prove a claim wrong
• Scientific statements ought to be able to ‘clash’ with the world.
• It must be possible to prove them false through experiments and observation
1. Unicorns exist and don’t exist. – false not falsifiable
2. Unicorns either exist or they don’t. – not falsifiable it allows for everything
3. Unicorns exist. – not falsifiable – as you cant know for sure that they don’t exist
4. Unicorns don’t exist. –falsifiable

Examples of unfalsifiable theories;
• Freud: Every little boy has an Oedipus complex, or is in denial of it. (always came
up for excuses of Why it did fit their theory)
• Marx: changes in the means of production lead to changes in labor conditions,
which lead to changes in political power, which in turn lead to changes in ideology –

, (what popper believed was wrong) people that believed in so always would come up
with explanation as to why it did not occur

Example of a falsified theory
 Secularization Thesis (popular in 19th-20th century sociology): Through
Enlightenment modernization, rationalization, combined with the ascent of science
and technology, religious authority diminishes in all aspects of social life and
governance. – POPER BELIVES THIS SHOULD BE REJECTED

Scientific method for Popper
• Science is about formulating theories (conjectures) in such a way that they can be falsified
by empirical observations.
• Theories must then be tested as rigorously as possible (attempted refutations).
• We accept those theories that have survived testing (so far)

Comparison: Popper vs. Positivism
Positivism – mainly about gatekeeping – falsifiability
• Fallibility and risk-taking
• Theoretical conjectures as starting points
• Get rid of bad ideas as you go
Vs
Popper - verifiability
• Striving for certainty
• Observations as starting points
• Don’t let any bad ideas in

Course overview & organization:
Course theme 1: Naturalism
• Are the social sciences different from the natural sciences? And, if so, how?
• Studying people and society vs. studying physical particles, objects, systems
• Insider vs. outsider perspective (in explaining human behaviour)
• Understanding vs. explaining
• Are there laws of nature, causality, mechanisms in the social sciences?

Course theme 2: Reductonism
• Is social science reducible to psychology and neuroscience, or even further to the natural
sciences?
• Or are they irreducible and are social-level descriptions, theories, and explanations
ineliminable?
• Methodological individualism
• Is talk about ‘families’, ‘organizations’, ‘institutions’, ‘nations’, etc. shorthand for talk
about individuals and their actions?
• Should a good explanation be couched in terms of individuals?

Course theme 3: Normativity
Normality of social science;
• Should (and can) social science be value- free?
• What does that mean and what does it have to do with objectivity, neutrality, and
trustworthiness?
Normality in social science;

Dit zijn jouw voordelen als je samenvattingen koopt bij Stuvia:

Bewezen kwaliteit door reviews

Studenten hebben al meer dan 850.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet jij zeker dat je de beste keuze maakt!

In een paar klikken geregeld

Geen gedoe — betaal gewoon eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of je Stuvia-tegoed en je bent klaar. Geen abonnement nodig.

Direct to-the-point

Studenten maken samenvattingen voor studenten. Dat betekent: actuele inhoud waar jij écht wat aan hebt. Geen overbodige details!

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 GIG1308. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.

Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?

Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €7,66. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.

Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?

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

Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 68175 samenvattingen verkocht

Opgericht in 2010, al 15 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen

Begin nu gratis

College aantekeningen

philosophy of science lecture notes, summary's of readings and book

Document informatie

Onderwerpen

Gekoppeld boek

Meer samenvattingen voor studieboek

Geschreven voor

Verkoper

Voorbeeld van de inhoud