Philosophy of Science 2020-2021 RSM
PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE: KEY TERMS
Ontology
Comes from the Greek word for “being”, and it is the study of being or existence, and its basic
categories and relationships. It seeks to determine what entities can be said to exist, or whether
we can group these entities on similarities or differences. It’s the theory of reality, of what is there
and what we can accept as reality. Theory being a “rational and abstract thinking about a certain
type of phenomenon”. Example of our ontology is accepting bitcoin as a currency because it takes
all of us to agree on it being a currency, it would not work if only two people think is a currency.
This also works for the euro. (Lecture 1)
Epistemology
Is a philosophical theory about knowledge. It is one of the four main branches of philosophy along
with logics, axiology, and metaphysics. This theory asks what knowledge is, what scientific
knowledge is, and how is this obtained. Epistemology questions can be “what do we know?” or
“what do we not know?”. “do we really know what we think we know?”. (Lecture 1)
Causality
Causality is a scheme of thought with which we structure and come to understand what we see in
our world. (Book, Ch1, Kantian idealism).
Causality is used to test what is scientific, is not a simple idea and it has a strong connection with
determinism. Determinism being the ontology that if we would know all applicable laws of nature
as well as the initial conditions, we can perfectly predict what will happen in the future, house
ontology of natural science (Lecture 1).
Causality is influence by which one event, process, state or object contributes to the production
of another event, process, state or object where the cause is partly responsible for the effect, and
the effect is partly dependent on the cause (Wikipedia).
Causal explanation Explaining
Causal explanations are causally metaphysical: they assess preceding causes as the explanation for
the emergence of a phenomenon. The problem is that teleologically metaphysical explanations
are useless, if we cannot point out the mechanisms that cause a phenomenon to fulfil a particular
function within a system (Book Ch4)
In casual explanation we have two parts. First, the part that does the explaining (pollution) and
the part that is being explained (extinction of species). We have system level causes and system
level outcomes. Another example is the advance of streaming technology (cause) and the demise
of video stores (outcome) (Lecture 6).
1
, Philosophy of Science 2020-2021 RSM
Intentional explanation Understanding
Intentionality is the power of minds to be about something: to represent or to stand for things,
properties, and states of affairs. Intentionality is primarily ascribed to mental states, like
perceptions, beliefs, or desires, which is why it has been regarded as the characteristic mark of
the mental by many philosophers. A central issue for theories of intentionality has been the
problem of intentional inexistence: to determine the ontological status of the entities which are
the objects of intentional states (Wikipedia)
Functional explanation Explaining
A functional explanation confuses cause and effect, that is why functional explanations are wrong
at first glance, they cannot be true in a causal sense. Example higher change if survival of giraffes
if they have a long neck. Transforming it to a causal explanation it would be that long neck of
giraffes (cause) higher chances of survival (effect).
Functional explanations have three conditions: 1) Causal feedback mechanism, 2) Higher order
regulative system, 3) existence of alternatives? (Lecture 6)
A functional explanation illuminates why a part behaves in a particular way, by looking at the
function of such behaviour within the contextual whole. Functionalism focuses on the system and
the role a phenomenon plays within such a system (Book, Ch 4)
Social ontology
Social ontology is the study of the nature and properties of the social world. It is concerned with
analysing the various entities in the world that arise from social interaction (online).
Institutions are everywhere, the firm, the state, legal personalities, money, securities… Important
for understanding today’s business world but not up to us individually to decide. We need social
ontology to explain them (Lecture 6)
Positive and normative theory
Positive theory (e.g. if I leave mi bike and I don’t think it will be stolen but if it is I have to change
my theory. I adapt my theory according to the world)
Has the ambition to explain the world as it is. “What is”
Makes explicit positive expectations towards the world
Has a theory-to-world direction of fit
Normative theory (e.g. if I leave my bike and I don’t think it will be stolen but it is, it doesn’t change
my theory. I try to change the world)
Has the ambition to justify the world as it ought to be. “What ought to be”
Makes explicit normative expectations towards the world
Has a world-to-theory direction of it (Lecture 1)
2
, Philosophy of Science 2020-2021 RSM
Logical argument
A logical argument is a series of statements
intending to form a claim. The last sentence is
the conclusion, it is the thesis or position being
argued for in this logical argument. It is a
statement which truth value the argument is
meant to establish. The premises are why the
conclusion should be accepted (Lecture 1).
Syllogism
A syllogism is a kind of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion
based on two or more propositions that are asserted or assumed to be true (Wikipedia)
Truth preservation
The conclusion is true due to two factors, 1) that the premises are truth, 2) that the logic to arriving
at the conclusion is valid. This is what we call truth preservation.
Truth preservation says that with a logical valid argument, true premises always lead to true
conclusions. If not, all premises are true, we do not know if the conclusion is true. Moreover, even
if the premises are true, and the conclusion is true, if the logic is invalid, the conclusion is not true.
(Lecture 1)
Valid argument
An argument is valid if and only if it is necessary that if all of the premises are true, then the
conclusion is true; if all the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true; it is impossible
that all the premises are true, and the conclusion is false (online).
Denying the consequence (Modus Tollens)
Example, if Socrates is God, he is immortal. Socrates is not
immortal. Therefore, Socrates is not God.
There could be fallacies, but denying the consequence is a
valid argument form. (Lecture 1)
Affirming the consequent (Modus Ponens)
A type of logic argument, which is invalid.
Is this logic valid? The example is a classical
fallacy of taking a conditional statement “if
A then B” and then inferring its converse,
even if its converse may not be true. B
cannot logically infer A. (Lecture 1)
It is a kind of formal fallacy (Book Ch1, p38)
3
