Philosophy of Social Science (Readings Notes)
Week 1
Popper: The logic of Scientific discovery
Singular statements: accounts of the results of observations or experiments
Universal statements: hypotheses or theories
The problem of induction (Hume’s problem): under what conditions are inductive
inferences justified (e.g. how many observations are enough?)
“...the question of the validity or the truth of universal statements which are based
on experience, such as the hypotheses and theoretical systems of the empirical
sciences.” (p. 11)
In order to find a way to justify inductive inferences, we need to establish a principle of
induction. Which would be a statement with the help of which we could put indictive
references into a logically accepted form. (Significant for scientific method).
The principle of induction must be a synthetic statement; that is, a statement whose
negation is not self-contradictory but logically possible. (p.12)
The principle needs though to be regarded as universal (truth as known from
experiences). However, we cannot justify this principle on experiences (infinite cycle
of the induction problem)
Alternatively, we can describe inductive inferences as ‘probability inferences’ (the principle
of induction serves to decide upon probability).
Scientific statements can only attain continuous degrees of probability whose
unattainable upper and lower limits are truth and falsity. (p.13). POSSIBLE THEORY
Elimination of Psychologism
The logical analysis of Scientific knowledge is concerned with the question of
justification and validity. (Can a statement be justified? And if so, how? Is it
testable? Is it logically dependent on other statements?)
Logic of knowledge consist solely in investigating the methods employed in those
systematic tests to which every new idea must be subjected if it is to be seriously
entertained.
o We need to consider that every discovery has an irrational element, creative
intuition. There is no logical pat to creation
Deductive testing of Theories
Different lines along which the testing of a theory could be carried out:
1. Logical comparison of the conclusions among themselves (internal testing of the
consistency of the system)
2. Investigation in the logical form of theory
3. Comparison with other theories
4. Empirical applications of the conclusion which can be derived from it. (verifying or
falsifying)
, The problem of Demarcation (Kant’s Problem)
The problem of finding a criterion which would enable us to distinguish between the
empirical sciences on the one hand, and mathematics and logic as well as ‘metaphysical’
systems on the other. (p.18)
The problem of demarcation is the main source for all theory of knowledge
problems.
The criterion of demarcation is identical with the demand for an inductive logic
(justify through the empirical)
Inductivist criterion for demarcation fails to draw a dividing live between scientific
and metaphysical systems.
Popper argues that we should argue rationally, by analyzing the logical consequences of his
proposals, point out their fertility; power to elucidate the problems of the theory of
knowledge.
Thus, the main point of the logic of knowledge is to put forward a concept of empirical
science, in order to draw a clear distinction between science and metaphysical ideas.
o Our idea has to be synthetic (needs to represent a non-contradictory, possible
world)
o Must satisfy the criterion of demarcation (not metaphysical, represent a world of
possible experience)
o It must be a system distinguished from others (represents our world of experience).
This can happen by submitting it to tests (deductive method)
o Experience thus appears as a distinctive empirical method (theory of knowledge)
Falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation
A system can be considered as empirical or scientific only if its capable of being tested by
experience. Thus, not verifiability, but falsifiability of a system is to be taken as a criterion of
demarcation.
“It must be possible for an empirical scientific system to be refuted by experience”
(p.25)
“According to my proposal, what characterizes the empirical method is its manner of
exposing to falsification, in every conceivable way, the system to be tested.” (p.27)
The method of falsification presupposes no inductive inference and only tautological
transformations of deductive logic whose validity is not in dispute (solution for Hume’s
problem of induction) -> by admitting statements that are falsifiable
Q: How does Popper argue that we should demarcate (or distinguish) science from non-
science?
Why is falsification theory a more ‘scientific’ approach than verification?
Video:
Inductive argument: an argument where the truth of the premises give good reason to
believe the conclusion (doesn’t absolutely guarantee its truth though)
Week 1
Popper: The logic of Scientific discovery
Singular statements: accounts of the results of observations or experiments
Universal statements: hypotheses or theories
The problem of induction (Hume’s problem): under what conditions are inductive
inferences justified (e.g. how many observations are enough?)
“...the question of the validity or the truth of universal statements which are based
on experience, such as the hypotheses and theoretical systems of the empirical
sciences.” (p. 11)
In order to find a way to justify inductive inferences, we need to establish a principle of
induction. Which would be a statement with the help of which we could put indictive
references into a logically accepted form. (Significant for scientific method).
The principle of induction must be a synthetic statement; that is, a statement whose
negation is not self-contradictory but logically possible. (p.12)
The principle needs though to be regarded as universal (truth as known from
experiences). However, we cannot justify this principle on experiences (infinite cycle
of the induction problem)
Alternatively, we can describe inductive inferences as ‘probability inferences’ (the principle
of induction serves to decide upon probability).
Scientific statements can only attain continuous degrees of probability whose
unattainable upper and lower limits are truth and falsity. (p.13). POSSIBLE THEORY
Elimination of Psychologism
The logical analysis of Scientific knowledge is concerned with the question of
justification and validity. (Can a statement be justified? And if so, how? Is it
testable? Is it logically dependent on other statements?)
Logic of knowledge consist solely in investigating the methods employed in those
systematic tests to which every new idea must be subjected if it is to be seriously
entertained.
o We need to consider that every discovery has an irrational element, creative
intuition. There is no logical pat to creation
Deductive testing of Theories
Different lines along which the testing of a theory could be carried out:
1. Logical comparison of the conclusions among themselves (internal testing of the
consistency of the system)
2. Investigation in the logical form of theory
3. Comparison with other theories
4. Empirical applications of the conclusion which can be derived from it. (verifying or
falsifying)
, The problem of Demarcation (Kant’s Problem)
The problem of finding a criterion which would enable us to distinguish between the
empirical sciences on the one hand, and mathematics and logic as well as ‘metaphysical’
systems on the other. (p.18)
The problem of demarcation is the main source for all theory of knowledge
problems.
The criterion of demarcation is identical with the demand for an inductive logic
(justify through the empirical)
Inductivist criterion for demarcation fails to draw a dividing live between scientific
and metaphysical systems.
Popper argues that we should argue rationally, by analyzing the logical consequences of his
proposals, point out their fertility; power to elucidate the problems of the theory of
knowledge.
Thus, the main point of the logic of knowledge is to put forward a concept of empirical
science, in order to draw a clear distinction between science and metaphysical ideas.
o Our idea has to be synthetic (needs to represent a non-contradictory, possible
world)
o Must satisfy the criterion of demarcation (not metaphysical, represent a world of
possible experience)
o It must be a system distinguished from others (represents our world of experience).
This can happen by submitting it to tests (deductive method)
o Experience thus appears as a distinctive empirical method (theory of knowledge)
Falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation
A system can be considered as empirical or scientific only if its capable of being tested by
experience. Thus, not verifiability, but falsifiability of a system is to be taken as a criterion of
demarcation.
“It must be possible for an empirical scientific system to be refuted by experience”
(p.25)
“According to my proposal, what characterizes the empirical method is its manner of
exposing to falsification, in every conceivable way, the system to be tested.” (p.27)
The method of falsification presupposes no inductive inference and only tautological
transformations of deductive logic whose validity is not in dispute (solution for Hume’s
problem of induction) -> by admitting statements that are falsifiable
Q: How does Popper argue that we should demarcate (or distinguish) science from non-
science?
Why is falsification theory a more ‘scientific’ approach than verification?
Video:
Inductive argument: an argument where the truth of the premises give good reason to
believe the conclusion (doesn’t absolutely guarantee its truth though)
