Summary philosophy of science exam

What is the scientific realism debate about? What is, in your opinion, the most convincing argument in support of antirealism?

Answer: It is about whether we should believe the realist, or the antirealist. Most convincing argumetn: We should understand scientific theories as instruments to predict and control observable phenomena, and the aim of science is to provide us with empirically adequate theories.

What is Bayesianism? What are the two central ideas?

Answer: Bayesianism tries to understand evidence using probability theory. When there is uncertainty about a hypothesis, observational evidence can sometimes raise or lower the probability of the hypothesis. There is a formula that is like a magic bullet for the evidence problem: Bayes’s theorem (18th century)\" P(h|e)= P(e|h)P(h)/P(e) The two central ideas of Bayesianism: 1. The idea that e confirms h if e raises the probability of h. 2. The idea that probabilities should be updated in a way dictated by Bayes’s theorem.

What\'s the relevance -- if any -- of feminism to our understanding of how science works?

Answer: Goal: To examine how gender relations have shaped the content, goals and practice of the sciences.Science should be value free. Scientific reasoning is objective to the extent that it is free of moral, political and social values.

Explain the \"Dutch book\" argument. Do you find the argument convincing?

Answer: If your degrees of belief do not conform to the principles of the probability calculus, there are possible gambling situations in which you are guaranteed to lose money, no matter how things turn out.There is a guarantee because these situations are ones in which you are betting on both sides of a proposition, at various different odds. (betting on all het horses in the race). Anyone who does not keep his degrees of belief in line with the probability calculus is irrational in an important sense. I do find this convincing.

What is the covering the covering law model of explanation? The shadow cast by a flagpole is supposed to cause a problem for this model of explanation. What exactly is the problem and how can it be solved?

Answer: covering law theory of explanation (20th century). The view was first developed in detail by Hempel and Oppenheim in a paper (1948). - explanandum is whatever is being explained. - Explanans is the thing that is doing the explaining. - If we ask “why X?” then X is the explanandum. If we answer “Because Y” then Y is the explanans. The asymmetry problem is most famous illustrated by the flagpole and the shadow. • Suppose we have a flagpole casting a shadow on a sunny day. o Why is the shadow X meters long? • According to the covering law theory, a good explanation is: deducing the length of the shadow from the height of the flagpole, the position of the sun and the laws of optics. This argument can even be made deductively valid. • The problem is we can just as good run an argument in another direction, we can deduce the height of the pole from the length of the shadow. o We cannot run an equally good explanation in both directions, though the covering law says we can. o It is not fine to explain the length of the flagpole in terms of the shadow and sun.

What is the \"symmetry principle\" endorsed by the strong program in the sociology of knowledge?\'

Answer: The symmetry principle = all forms of belief and behaviour should be approached using the same kinds of explanations. Our own assessment of an idea can not have an effect on how we explain things.

What are the 4 norms that are part of Merton\'s account of science? What do they imply?

Answer: -universalism = the idea that the personal attributes and social background of a person are irrelevant to the scientific value of the person\'s ideas. -Communism = the common ownership of scientific ideas and results (anyone can make use of any scientific idea in his or her work) - Disinterestedness = Scientists are supposed to act for the benefit of a common scientific enterprise, rather than personal gain. -Organized skepticism = A community-wide pattern of challenging and testing ideas instead of taking them on trust.

What is trivial observation?

Answer: Science is practiced in a social context and governed by social norms. Scientists are: - employed by some institution - often working in a team - have to apply to funding bodies for grants - have to publish their results in journals edited by other scientists

What is the traditional answer to this question: - Are the sciences neutral with respect to the values that characterize the context in which they are practiced?

Answer: Scientific knowledge is objective, value-free, and context-independent.

What is the traditional answer to this question: Does the social context in which scientific research is carried out affect the outcomes of research?

Answer: The social context in which an investigation is carried out does not affect its outcomes