College aantekeningen
Lecture Notes for Philosophy of social science
- Instelling
- Universiteit Van Amsterdam (UvA)
The document provides detailed lecture notes from each session of the course 'Philosophy of Social science'.
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 3 van de 21 pagina's
Voorbeeld 3 van de 21 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Verkoper
Volgen
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Philosophy of social scienceLecture 1: Introducing the course & truth in a ‘post-truth’ world?
Themes:
What is science, scientific knowledge? Context is significant for understanding,
background knowledge
The nature of the ‘social’.
Questions around ethics, the Enlightenment and epistemology. How do they relate
to one another?
Science is ultimately a question of truth
Science is a process by which knowledge is validated or discounted systematically
o A process where at its heart, knowledge claims are either validated or
discarded
Validity = “the best available approximation to the truth of a given proposition,
inference, or conclusion”
Truth is never realized… but approximated less imperfect fashion
There are different styles of doing science
o i.e. different approaches to scientific thinking (Crombie 1994)
Styles of Scientific Thinking: Thinking in the European Tradition (Crombie 1994)
Observation of individual objects
1. Axiomatic
2. Experimental
3. Hypothetical-analogical
Population (looking for patterns across larger groups)
4. Taxonomy
5. Probabilistic/statistical
6. Genealogical
In science, within certain disciplines, ideas become possible as a reaction to previous
established ideas.
Styles of studying individual objects and their commodities
Axiomatic:
Truth is developed through discovering first principles and then postulating
statements in relation to these, using logic…
o All scientific thinking is relied on underline assumptions
2 components in scientific thinking:
Either through geometric and arithmetic
Or by developing logical arguments based on first principles (syllogism)
e.g., All humans are mortal. Socrates is a human. Therefore,
Socrates is a mortal.
, Key idea: Scientific thinking always requires underlying axioms or assumptions and
builds upon these through systematic thinking.
Experimental: This style is used to explore and control nature through observation and
measurement of puzzling phenomena.
It focuses on the manipulation of conditions. It is an important part on creation and
producing knowledge systematically
Controlled experiments (in the lab, manipulation), natural experiments (e.g.
Hypothetical-analogical: The purpose of this style is to elucidate (make something clear)
unknown characteristics of the studied objects through simulation, analogy, and modeling of
the phenomena.
There is interest in how scientists think and reason. Making metaphors and
analogies
Developing hypotheses, models.
Styles relating to the study of populations of objects
Taxonomy: comprises the logic of classification, whose goal is to establish
differences and similarities between objects as being placed within a specific order
of the phenomenal world
Probability or statistical analysis: this style is based on the logic of decision in the
investigation of patterns and regularities.
Genealogical or historical derivation: this style of thinking integrates the analysis of
the development of events, and in general, this method pursue[s] patterns through
the observation of historical facts (e.g., historical, geological, or medical evidence.)
to postulate their possible sequence and the causes’ (Causality over time)
These different styles do not just exist separately, some scientists can combine them.
Styles of science built on different assumptions of truth
Each style determines its own way what qualifies as truth. Or falsify, as criteria for
falsify are established along with criteria for truth, without which a statement would
not be recognized as “scientific”.
To be scientific, a statement has to be refutable.
Change and development over time
Another key idea on how scientists think is based on counter-idea thinking. Based
on the idea that the alternative standpoint cannot be true.
Truth, post-truth, or approximations of truth?
Science never had the truth in the first place, we live in an approximated truth, so the post-
truth world claim is problematic.
Science is trying to become objective, but it can’t.
Politicians twits scientific findings, but politics also shape science itself
, Concluding thoughts…
Science is a set of practices which harness tools to validate or discount knowledge;
different styles using different tools
Knowledge is more or less valid – i.e. better or worse approximation of the truth
In this sense truth is neither attainable (approximated)
o Nor static (word changes, science shifts, continuously being refined)
An approximation of the truth is never static (not objective-> we
can’t escape our priori-knowledge). Our understanding also
changes.
o Nor objective (standpoint)
o Nor value-free (always political, science and politics are interrelated)
But these observations neither imply relativism nor post-truth (relativism implies
that background/context doesn’t matter; wrong)
Science is always contextualized, it always has assumptions
Lecture 2: Doing science? More on the nature of scientific thinking…
Problem with inductive thinking: especially the inescapable reliance on a priori (background)
knowledge- and therefore the inevitable shaping of science by context (bias)
Even falsification still has to come back and rely on preoccupations
Doing science is showing to be critiqued by others
Deductive and Inductive reasoning
Deduction: ‘The researcher on the basis of what is known about in particular domain
and of theoretical considerations in relation to that domain, deduces a hypothesis
that must then be subjected to empirical scrutiny’ (Bryman 2012:24)
o Associated with axiomatic and hypothetical-analogical ‘styles’
Induction: ‘process of induction involves drawing generalizable inferences out of
observations’ (ibid.24)
o Considered a ‘bottom-up’, empirically-driven approach whereby sensory
observation is the starting point.
o Induction requires assumption, in order for us to make inductive claims.
Background knowledge is important for both.
Introducing the problem of induction (Hume)
Hume argues that we need to get rid of background knowledge
A call for a radical empiricism (just objectivity and observation)
o There is a mistrust to the metaphysics and a mistrust to the mind by hume.
Further into problems of inductive logic (Popper)
Popper is trying to sidestep the dependence that inductive logic has on background
knowledge
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 orfeastzevelekis. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €5,16. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 72042 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen