Eva Craane
2672529
Cultural Anthropology and Development Sociology
Philosophy of Science
SSA 4 - 6
26/02/2021
4.1 Which typical components of a paradigm does Chalmers present? Which necessary functions
do normal and revolutionary science have, according to Chalmers?
Chalmers presents the following typical components of a paradigm
- ‘Fundamental laws and theoretical assumptions’ (p. 109)
- ‘Standard ways of applying the fundamental laws to a variety of types of situations’ (p.
109)
- ‘Instrumentation and instrumental techniques necessary for bringing the laws of the
paradigm to bear on the real world’ (p. 109)
- ‘General, metaphysical principles that guide work within a paradigm’ (p. 109)
The necessary functions that normal and revolutionary science have according to Chalmers
are ‘detailed attempts to articulate a paradigm with the aim of improving the match between it
and nature’ (p. 110). Kuhn explains certain necessary functions, such as periods of normal
science, which help provide the opportunity for scientists to develop ‘the esoteric details of a
theory’ (p. 118)
4.2 How, according to Smith, can Kuhn’s concept of 'paradigm' be applied in the social
sciences?
Smith discusses three application of the concept of ‘paradigm’ within social science, namely:
(1) Paradigm 1; behaviorism
(2) Paradigm 2; cognitive psychology and social psychology: Gestalt shift to move between
these ‘paradigms’
(3) Paradigm 3: social psychology and other schools: Different modes of representing social
phenomena and different theoretical perspectives.
Lecture 6, J. Grayot, 2020
4.3 What does Fisher understand by ‘the logic of good reasons’?
Fisher defines logic as designating ‘a systematic set of procedures that will aid in the analysis
and assessment of elements of reasoning in rhetorical interactions’ (Fisher, YEAR, p. 106). He
further defines good reasoning as being too narrow of a concept. The circle of good reasoning
needs to be broadened by allowing more instances of reasoning and values to place themselves
within.
Furthermore, Fisher explains five components within the logic of reasoning. These
components are:
1. Whether a statement presented as a fact is indeed a fact, using confirmed sources
2. Whether a ‘fact’ is relevant
3. Assessing patterns of reasoning
4. Assessing the relevance of individual argumentation
1
, 5. Whether the statement relates back to the original issue at hand.
4.4 In the text, you will find a number of incomplete arguments (pp. 15-17). Complete these with
appropriate claims, grounds or warrants (C1, G1, W1; W2; C3; G4; W5).
G1: Finding out what happened; Smith was shot by Jones as he was found in his bedroom
C1: Decide whether or not someone is guilty; Jones is not guilty of murder
W1: Precedents and reasoning; Jones has the right to shoot trespassers on his property
W2: Looking at certain ethical policies; the professor took advantage of his powerful position as
an authority
G3: Looking at the effects of the situation; the professor should be held responsible and possibly
be punished for breaking school rules
C4: Observe the current situation, something that is a fact; it is fall, then conclusion of the birds
can be made
W5: Looking at a causal connection between G and C; when it is cold and I am tired, I get sick
more easily
4.5 Assume that each of the following statements is a warrant for an argument. State the one
category to which the most likely backing for each warrant would belong
(observation/experience, authority, definition, theory, consistency). Briefly explain your answers.
A. Definition, this is factual and the term can be clearly defined
B. Observation/experience, it was previously observed that the streets are slippery when it
rains, so therefore whenever it rains the streets will be slippery
C. Theory, it is based on the norms and normal behavior
D. Authority, this argument is backed by authoritative research
E. Consistency, the argument needs to be backed in all cases.
F. Observation/experience, this was observed and experienced, as the discussion ended
2
2672529
Cultural Anthropology and Development Sociology
Philosophy of Science
SSA 4 - 6
26/02/2021
4.1 Which typical components of a paradigm does Chalmers present? Which necessary functions
do normal and revolutionary science have, according to Chalmers?
Chalmers presents the following typical components of a paradigm
- ‘Fundamental laws and theoretical assumptions’ (p. 109)
- ‘Standard ways of applying the fundamental laws to a variety of types of situations’ (p.
109)
- ‘Instrumentation and instrumental techniques necessary for bringing the laws of the
paradigm to bear on the real world’ (p. 109)
- ‘General, metaphysical principles that guide work within a paradigm’ (p. 109)
The necessary functions that normal and revolutionary science have according to Chalmers
are ‘detailed attempts to articulate a paradigm with the aim of improving the match between it
and nature’ (p. 110). Kuhn explains certain necessary functions, such as periods of normal
science, which help provide the opportunity for scientists to develop ‘the esoteric details of a
theory’ (p. 118)
4.2 How, according to Smith, can Kuhn’s concept of 'paradigm' be applied in the social
sciences?
Smith discusses three application of the concept of ‘paradigm’ within social science, namely:
(1) Paradigm 1; behaviorism
(2) Paradigm 2; cognitive psychology and social psychology: Gestalt shift to move between
these ‘paradigms’
(3) Paradigm 3: social psychology and other schools: Different modes of representing social
phenomena and different theoretical perspectives.
Lecture 6, J. Grayot, 2020
4.3 What does Fisher understand by ‘the logic of good reasons’?
Fisher defines logic as designating ‘a systematic set of procedures that will aid in the analysis
and assessment of elements of reasoning in rhetorical interactions’ (Fisher, YEAR, p. 106). He
further defines good reasoning as being too narrow of a concept. The circle of good reasoning
needs to be broadened by allowing more instances of reasoning and values to place themselves
within.
Furthermore, Fisher explains five components within the logic of reasoning. These
components are:
1. Whether a statement presented as a fact is indeed a fact, using confirmed sources
2. Whether a ‘fact’ is relevant
3. Assessing patterns of reasoning
4. Assessing the relevance of individual argumentation
1
, 5. Whether the statement relates back to the original issue at hand.
4.4 In the text, you will find a number of incomplete arguments (pp. 15-17). Complete these with
appropriate claims, grounds or warrants (C1, G1, W1; W2; C3; G4; W5).
G1: Finding out what happened; Smith was shot by Jones as he was found in his bedroom
C1: Decide whether or not someone is guilty; Jones is not guilty of murder
W1: Precedents and reasoning; Jones has the right to shoot trespassers on his property
W2: Looking at certain ethical policies; the professor took advantage of his powerful position as
an authority
G3: Looking at the effects of the situation; the professor should be held responsible and possibly
be punished for breaking school rules
C4: Observe the current situation, something that is a fact; it is fall, then conclusion of the birds
can be made
W5: Looking at a causal connection between G and C; when it is cold and I am tired, I get sick
more easily
4.5 Assume that each of the following statements is a warrant for an argument. State the one
category to which the most likely backing for each warrant would belong
(observation/experience, authority, definition, theory, consistency). Briefly explain your answers.
A. Definition, this is factual and the term can be clearly defined
B. Observation/experience, it was previously observed that the streets are slippery when it
rains, so therefore whenever it rains the streets will be slippery
C. Theory, it is based on the norms and normal behavior
D. Authority, this argument is backed by authoritative research
E. Consistency, the argument needs to be backed in all cases.
F. Observation/experience, this was observed and experienced, as the discussion ended
2
