Samenvatting
philosophy of science summary for exam
- Instelling
- Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU)
a detailed summary with explanations of different terms of philosophy of science, based on what we will be on the exam
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 4 van de 43 pagina's
Voorbeeld 4 van de 43 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Verkoper
Volgen
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Lecture 1- We need to find something, an underlying idea, of what makes good science
- Circle of scientific method: observation / question → research topic idea → hypothesis
→ test with experiment → analyze data → report conclusions → observation /
question…
- What considers to be “good science” depends on different factors and contexts
- Social science comes out from natural sciences in a way, but also changed in a specific
way because the target is different
- Social science - dealing with society and society activities
- Sloppy science - DIederik Stapel - fraud science by polishing the “bad” data so that it fits
his theories, some data wasn’t even published. He misled people and lacked research
ethics. As a punishment, he was removed from academia for fabricated results and fraud
was found in 55 of his papers. He showed fraud in 4 ways:
1. Publication bias - failed experiments were not published, only the successful
ones
2. Lack of replication / reproduction of results - his study could not be redone again
3. Statistical incompetence
4. Lack of research ethics
- Conclusion from Diederik Stapel:
➔ Gives reasons to look critically at scientific research
➔ Eliminate sloppy science
➔ Enforce the ideas of objective science
➔ Make publication of negative results more accepted
➔ Improve quantitative / qualitative methods
➔ Promote ethical research standards
- Even with all of these conclusion, science is still NOT objective
- Objectivity in science means distinguishing between objective facts and subjective
opinions or perspectives about the world
- For a claim like “scientific knowledge is objective” to be valid:
1. Concepts must be clearly defined
2. Need to avoid any kind of vagueness and ambiguity - shift from using an
everyday language to a formal-scientific language, ir order to establish clarity
3. Concepts need to be precise, specified, measurable, and free from personal bias,
so personal convictions and values will not play any role.
- Science is all about empirical evidence
- External influences (like values or politics) should not play a role
- Problems with objectivity in science:
, 1. Schroeder’s staircase - two different people- see the same thing differently. The
same object but different perspectives:
➔ Different people experience the same image in different ways
➔ The direction of the stairs is affected by ones visual perspective
➔ This means it is difficult to establish facts
➔ Facts cannot be given to people directly - The idea that "facts are directly
given to careful, unprejudiced observers via the senses" implies that
acquiring factual knowledge relies on unbiased observation using the
senses, but even then, interpretation and subjective factors can
complicate the process of establishing facts.
2. X-ray technician - 2 x-ray technicians are looking at a broken bone. They see
different things as they have different experiences. They have the same
information but the novice X-ray technician does not see what the expert sees.
The facts obtained by the x-ray depend on having prior knowledge. conclusions:
➔ It's not always clear what makes something a fact - what makes
something a science
➔ In some cases, facts see observer-dependent (Schroeder’s staircase)
➔ In other cases, facts seem observer independent (X-ray of broken bone)
➔ Common sense is problematic with science
- Identifying ‘causes’ and ‘laws’ in psychology and neuroscience in’t also predictable
- Objectivity can still be problematic even if science is not sloppy
- Naturalism - in social science it suggests that society can be studied using methods
similar to those used in natural science like biology or physics. This view emphasizes the
importance of causal relations, explanations, and the development of theories to
understand social phenomena.
- Reductionism - the idea that complex ideas can be explained by reducing them to the
interactions of simpler components. In the context of society, reductionism suggests that
societal structures and dynamics can ultimately be explained by the actions and
interactions of people. Reductionism aims to understand complex social phenomena by
breaking them down into simpler components, whether they be societal wholes (holism)
or individual behaviors (individualism):
1. Holism (top down perspective)- looks at society as a whole, emphasizing how
different parts of society interact to create a larger system. It's like looking at a
puzzle and understanding how each piece fits together to from the complete
picture of society
2. Individualism (bottom-up perspective) - focuses on the actions and behaviors of
individual people within society. It's like zooming in on one piece of the puzzle,
and studying it in detail to understand how it contributes to the overall picture
,- Normativity - how norms, values, and rules influence both society and the research
process. Normativity influences whether researchers view themselves as impartial
observers (emphasizing objectivity) or recognize their own biases and perspectives as
integral to the research process (blurring the line between subject and object).
- the insider vs outsider perspective in social research (Smith) - there are 2 conflicting
approaches to conduct social science:
1. Theorem 1 (P1)- to be a good scientist - and to be able to describe the deepest
levels of religious experiences - you have to be a member of the religious
community under scrutiny = the position of the insider (kind of like
anthropology?)
2. Theorem 2 (P2) - This viewpoint says that while it's okay for a researcher to have
personal connections or beliefs related to the subject they're studying, those
connections shouldn't influence their scientific research. It's similar to
maintaining objectivity in scientific research. Here, the emphasis is on conducting
research without letting personal biases or affiliations sway the results.
- Theorem 1 says insider status is crucial for understanding, while Theorem 2 says
personal connections shouldn't impact research outcomes. So, while Theorem 1
emphasizes the importance of being an insider, Theorem 2 stresses the need for
objectivity regardless of insider status.
- Problems with the insider perspective (Theorem 1):
➔ Biased descriptions
➔ Apologetic (defensive, protective) descriptions
- Problems with the outsider perspective (Theorem 2):
➔ Too much emphasis on explanations
➔ The scientists can simply not understand the investigated topic
➔ The scientists will not understand the meanings of behavior
➔ Miss characterization of what is really happening
➔ False reduction of insider perspective
- Best solutions:
➔ Neutral stance (between insider and outsider stance) - like methodological
agnosticism (researchers don't take a stance on whether something exists or not;
they focus solely on gathering empirical evidence and analyzing it without
making assumptions about the underlying truth)
➔ Reflexive stance - critical towards one’s own assumptions. To be an insider, but
constantly check the facts and be very critical
➔ Schutz suggests a third perspective - a third perspective: take the perspective of
the stranger
, - The stranger’s perspective - combines, blends, the insider and the outsider
perspectives:
1. The Insider - you are there enough to see how people interact, what are
important cultural aspects (language, jokes)
2. The outsider - you know what it means to not be from this group, detached
perspective, cam appreciate what these people are doing
3. The stranger = best of both worlds
- Naturalism - about explanation and understating. Explaining from the outsider and
understanding from the inside
- Reductionism - about holism and individualism. Social events are explained or
understood from a top-down or a bottom-up perspective
- Normativity - about all parts of the box. About the systems and the agents, about the
practices and the actors - about the object of the study . what values, roles, or norms are
involved in social activities.
- Main people who represent the different approaches to study the social world:
1. Systems (Marks) - this concept suggests that the system, or the larger social
structure, influences the actions and behaviors of individuals within it. →
between Holism and Explanation. Instead of individual consciousness shaping
society, its society’s structure that shapes individual consciousness
2. Agents (Mill) - individuals’ behaviors contribute to the formation and functioning
of society → between Individualism and Explanation. The emphasis is on
understanding social phenomena by studying behavior first, as it forms the
foundation of larger societal structures and dynamics
3. Practices (Wittenstein) - the rules and norms of society heavily influence how
people behave and interact. In social life, individuals are like players in a game,
and the rules of the game (social norms and roles) dictate their actions →
between Holism and Understanding. People make sense of each other through
language.
4. Actors (Elster) - people play an active role in creating the structures and
dynamics of society → between Individualism and Understanding. The actor
takes on the role. Understanding social institutions by looking at how they are
shaped by meaningful actions of individuals. To understand society, we need to
start by understanding the motivations and actions of individual actors.
- Explanation + Holism = Systems
- Explanation + Individualism = Agents
- Understanding + Holism = Practices
- Understanding + Individualism = Actors
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 kerenreuveni. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €7,56. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 52928 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen