Practice questions Exam 1
1. What is the use of the probability scale of knowledge?
The use of the probability scale is that it gives a clear visual representation of
the scale of knowledge. It shows which methods are very certain (deduction,
induction, abduction) and which are not (Folk knowledge, religious beliefs).
It shows which methods are proven to work and which have never proved to
generate knowledge which brings us closer to the truth.
2. Why is the axiomatic deductive method doomed to fail scientific enterprise?
An axiomatic deductive system is a syllogism which uses an axiom as one of
its premises in order to get to a conclusion. An axiom is based on an
assumption which is not 100% certain, so it is not based on deduction, but
rather on induction. If the axiom is not certain then the entire reasoning
which comes behind It is also weak(er). For example: Descartes was a
believer in god while he also doubted everything, including his own senses.
He said that God was good, and if God created humans, humans must also be
good. So that would mean that his senses would not deceive him since they
were good. The reasoning is sound, but the axiom it was based on (‘God
exists, and he is good’) is not.
3. Why is Bruno Latour’s analysis of the scientific practice problematic for the
philosophy of Karl Popper?
Popper believed that a scientific theory was only a good one if it could be
falsified. However, Latour discovered when he was studying physicists while
writing ‘Laboratory Life’ that many of their discoveries were wrong (didn’t fit
in the scientific paradigm). He concluded that their reality was socially
constructed. This does not fit with the philosophy of Karl Popper because
scientific methods are often disregarded/ignored (‘falsified’) because they
don’t fit within the scientific mainstream or what they wanted to observe.
This can be seen as trying until they accidentally got it right—and that is not
what Popper would have envisioned science to be.
4. Why is Pigliucci fiercely opposing pseudoscience?
Because pseudo sciences have proven not to work yet people still believe in
them. Pseudo sciences (astrology, homeopathy, etc) still attract millions
which also spend a lot of money on it. It does not make sense to believe in it.
If you tested someone that claimed for example to be a dowser, their results
wouldn’t be any better than those achieved by mere chance. Still, there are
many supporters.
I think that Pigliucci is mainly annoyed by people who believe in
pseudoscience—he goes to extreme lengths to explain why certain practices
(in the chapters we read astrology, for example) are untrustworthy and not
real sciences.
Pigliucci believes that pseudoscience belief is dangerous for society. For
example, anti-vaccinaters which believe that vaccines cause autism. They
endanger the community because they risk the spread of diseases like mump
1. What is the use of the probability scale of knowledge?
The use of the probability scale is that it gives a clear visual representation of
the scale of knowledge. It shows which methods are very certain (deduction,
induction, abduction) and which are not (Folk knowledge, religious beliefs).
It shows which methods are proven to work and which have never proved to
generate knowledge which brings us closer to the truth.
2. Why is the axiomatic deductive method doomed to fail scientific enterprise?
An axiomatic deductive system is a syllogism which uses an axiom as one of
its premises in order to get to a conclusion. An axiom is based on an
assumption which is not 100% certain, so it is not based on deduction, but
rather on induction. If the axiom is not certain then the entire reasoning
which comes behind It is also weak(er). For example: Descartes was a
believer in god while he also doubted everything, including his own senses.
He said that God was good, and if God created humans, humans must also be
good. So that would mean that his senses would not deceive him since they
were good. The reasoning is sound, but the axiom it was based on (‘God
exists, and he is good’) is not.
3. Why is Bruno Latour’s analysis of the scientific practice problematic for the
philosophy of Karl Popper?
Popper believed that a scientific theory was only a good one if it could be
falsified. However, Latour discovered when he was studying physicists while
writing ‘Laboratory Life’ that many of their discoveries were wrong (didn’t fit
in the scientific paradigm). He concluded that their reality was socially
constructed. This does not fit with the philosophy of Karl Popper because
scientific methods are often disregarded/ignored (‘falsified’) because they
don’t fit within the scientific mainstream or what they wanted to observe.
This can be seen as trying until they accidentally got it right—and that is not
what Popper would have envisioned science to be.
4. Why is Pigliucci fiercely opposing pseudoscience?
Because pseudo sciences have proven not to work yet people still believe in
them. Pseudo sciences (astrology, homeopathy, etc) still attract millions
which also spend a lot of money on it. It does not make sense to believe in it.
If you tested someone that claimed for example to be a dowser, their results
wouldn’t be any better than those achieved by mere chance. Still, there are
many supporters.
I think that Pigliucci is mainly annoyed by people who believe in
pseudoscience—he goes to extreme lengths to explain why certain practices
(in the chapters we read astrology, for example) are untrustworthy and not
real sciences.
Pigliucci believes that pseudoscience belief is dangerous for society. For
example, anti-vaccinaters which believe that vaccines cause autism. They
endanger the community because they risk the spread of diseases like mump
