UCLA Philosophy 8 Final Questions With 100% Correct Answers

UCLA Philosophy 8 Final Questions With 100% Correct Answers Explanans of an Explanation - answerThe fact(s) that explain the explanandum Explanandum of an Explanation - answerThe fact to be explained Covering-Law Model of Explanation (Deductive Nomological Model) - answerBy Carl Hempel and Paul Oppenheim To explain phenomena P is to derive it in terms of a logical deductive argument Four features required of an explanation in the Covering-Law Model - answer1. An explanation is a type of argument with the explanans as the premise(s) and the explanandum as the conclusion 2. The explanans must contain at least one general law of nature, and the law of nature must be required in the argument such that the explanandum would not follow without it 3. The premises must be true 4. The explanans must have "empirical content" Main Criticism of the DNM (Flagpole Example) - answerThe DNM cannot capture the asymmetry of explanation: The DNM says I can predict the height of a flagpole from the length of the shadow, but I cannot explain why. Have argument but no explanation Also, it is not clear what a law of nature is. According to Lakatos, what does a scientific research program consist of? - answerHard- Core, Protective Belt Examples: Newtonian mechanics - hard core is newton's laws, protective belt is claims about the masses of the planets Darwinian biology - hard core: claim that species are linked by family trees which represent evolutionary descent; protective belt: detailed stories about the relationships between species What is the hard core of the program? - answerRepresents the main elements of the research program What is the protective belt of the program? - answerauxiliary hypotheses are used to apply the hard core to particular cases; protect the hard core from falsification because these hypotheses would be rejected if an incorrect prediction is deduced What methodological principles does Lakatos give for working within a scientific research program? - answer-Changes should only be made to the protective belt, not the hard core -Changes in the protective belt should be progressive When is a research program progressive and when is it degenerate? - answer-Progressive - keeps expanding in terms of explanatory power and is able to handle new domains -Degenerating - not successfully being expanded to handle new domains, unable to account for new phenomena; may have to retreat Why does Lakatos' account never tell us that a certain research program should be definitively abandoned? - answer-Lakatos thinks it is rational to protect a degenerating research program for a while because it may only be facing a temporary setback, but we are not told how long it is reasonable to wait -given more information we can make it progressive again but not given a definite answer as to WHEN we should abandon What is Feyerabend's "Epistemological Anarchist" view? - answer-There are no rules of rational inquiry in science, because these rules would put constraints on creativity, and science requires creativity -There is no scientific method Why does Feyerabend think that science is sometimes dogmatic even when it comes to observational claims? - answer-One is best advised against reason because science may benefit from that -people are used to viewing science and making observational claims -For example, the Copernican theory that the earth moves around the sun is "disproved" by observation, so though it seemed against reason, he was right -Have to get over dogmatic attitude and take these risks for science to benefit