Samenvatting
Summary Philosophy of science lecture 6-9
Philosophy of science notes lectures AND book
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 2 van de 12 pagina's
Voorbeeld 2 van de 12 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Gekoppeld boek
Titel boek:
Auteur(s):
- Uitgave:
- ISBN:
- Druk:
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
LECTURE 6Fellibilist epistemology: our understanding of reality is basically fallible (error prone) → scientific knowledge
can be more or less confirmed, but it cannot be guaranteed to be free of error. We have to think how we
can correct our ideas.
Karl Popper (1902-1994)
→ associated with anti-inductionism: the black swan.
→ More a rationalist than empiricist.
→ According to him there is also a rational aspect to knowledge and science. → theory always comes
before observation, not after
Conspiracy theories→ if you believe in something you’ll find confirmation everywhere.
→ Confirmation evidence can be perceived everywhere.
→ Is Marx’s political and social theory a scientific theory? No, because no matter what happens it is always
right.
→ The formulation of the theory makes them always tight. → They adjust the theory after observations
Their theory explains everything. →This can not be scientific says Popper.
→ No risky and bold statements in the social sciences in those days:
• marxist theory of scientific socialism
• Adler’s theory of inferiority complex
• Freud Oedipus complex.
→ if a theory is able to explain all the relevant data, if it is constantly supported by an “incessant stream of
confirmations” it is not a virtue.
→ “once your eyes were opened you saw confirming instances everywhere: the world was full of
verifications of the theory.
The empirical base of verification is either:
• certain but subjective (phenomenalism)
• intersubjective but not certain (physicalism)
→ The Vienna Circle didn’t solve the problem about the foundation of scientific statements
→ Popper got a new idea (more rationalistic) Can a theory be considered scientific when it is always true,
no matter what happens? According to Popper: NO
↓
New criterion of demarcation: Falsification
How did he get his idea?
In 1919 there were a lot of things going on. One of them was the Eddington expedition about the bending of
light.
Newtonian ideas overthrown: before observation scientist knew which observations would prove Newton or
Einstein right or wrong.
Popper thought that the theories of Newton and Einstein were bold and risky.
→ because the boundary between science and not science is not clear yet. Empiricist solutions don’t work
good enough.
• verification - too strong: a complete and definitive establishment of the truth is never possible, you
can’t observe everything. Theories are not the absolute truth but an instrument to predict.
• confirmation - too weak: a theory must be in agreement with established facts. Partial verification
or degree of confirmation
High confirmation leaves too much for pseudo-science
Popper’s new idea:
→ add critical thinking
Any legitimate scientific theory will make predictions that can in principle be falsified.
Statements of science should be falsified: an active search for refunding evidence of a statements is the
heart of the scientific method. → you should think of observations that can prove your theories wrong.
Falsification : “statements that are ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or
conceivable, observations.”
→ doesn’t mean that a theory should actually be falsified, it needs to have a possibility of falsification → it
needs to have a condition that could falsify the theory.
, Characteristics:
1. Falsification is an adequate criterion of demarcation
→ We should specify under which conditions the statement or theory would be falsified.
→ Failed attempts to falsify a theory only corroborate the theories. Evene severe testing has not yet
been able to refute the theory.
2. Only theories that can be falsified are informative
They don’t say things might or might not happen. If falsification is not possible, statements and
theories are not informative.
3. Confirms that humans are fallible
→ we are seekers for truth, but we are not its possessors.
→ we don’t know, we only guess. Humans are error-prone.
4. Only through falsification can scientific knowledge grow.
→ Knowledge grows through conjectures and refutations, trial and error.
→ Deduction instead of induction. Deduction is logically valid. The problem with it is to establish the
truth of the first premise. But according to Popper, this cannot be done.
↓
A theory can never be proven
→ As long as we have not refuted the theory, we can accept, pretend it is true, but we are
never allowed to say it is actually true.
Knowledge grows through deduction:
All swans are white
Positivists look for specific cases (verification: white swans) and say: all swans are white
→ induction
→ Popper says: “all swans are white” is a working theory and I look for specific cases (falsification non
white swans). if I find one, my working theory is wrong. If I don’t find one my theory is corroborated.
→ deduction
Philosophy of science is like a pendulum. Swings from one side to the other.
What Kant did to Hume, Popper did to the Vienna Circle.
→ Not only think, think critically
Can we find objective knowledge? if yes, where?
Popper objectifies knowledge.
Popper’s 3 different worlds:
1. the physical world → physical objects and events, matter and energy, biological systems
2. the mental world → the conscious intelligent minds with intentionality and mental states.
3. the products of the human mind → the abstract world. It’s about thought content.
• Unembodied objects: such as abstract entities, language, mathematics, theories, objective
knowledge.
• Embodied entities: products of human design and engineering, art works.
Objective knowledge can be found in World 3
World 3 is all about thought content: Theories, books, work of art, myths…
If you do an analysis of a work of art: it is an objective knowledge. It is in the world of objects.
Ex: The Fifth of Beethoven:
• is it a physical object? yes, in world 1. (CD’s, MP3’s..)- physicalist, materialist monist view of
knowledge.
• is it a human experience? yes, in world 2: world 1+ people hear and remember it, experience the
performance in the mind (dualist view of knowledge)
• is it a real abstract object? Yes, in world 3: it is a real abstract object because it has a causal direct
and indirect effect upon us, it is an objectified real great work of art (pluralist view of knowledge)
Causal direct and indirect effect: then it’s objectively great.
Popper says that we should try to hold into the idea that objectivity exist, that objective knowledge and
beauty exist.
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 Svi. 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 67096 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen