Problem 5 - Bem & Jong + Hughes B. M. What is Pseudoscience + Turner et al. Scientific Norms/
Counternorms
Characteristics of scientific knowledge
- Historically, science was organized common sense
- The new scientific methods have a systematic nature that tries to formulate laws that apply
everywhere
1. Systematicity: theories must be applicable, coherent and if possible hierarchical, the
domain of application is specified at the outset
2. Well-defined methods: methods should also specify what counts as legitimate subject
matter
3. Reduction: ignoring certain aspects of reality at the descriptive level and reducing
phenomena to underlying principles at an explanatory level
4. Objectivity: being controllable, reliable and intersubjectively observable
5. Clarity: statements are phrased unambiguously, addressed to the public domain
6. Revisable: scientific knowledge is open, never definite and at all times revisable
- Testability of science goes beyond common-sense
- Common sense is dependent on unchanging conditions whereas science is explicit about its
assumptions
- Science is systematic and coherent in a way that everyday knowledge is not
- Science avoids inconsistencies but common sense is not concerned about that and tries to
build homogeneous network of concepts
- Manifest image: world of objects of common sense, is an illusion e.g. water
- Scientific image: world of particles and forces e.g. H2O
Deductive arguments:
- doesn’t generate new knowledge
- Arguments are sets of statements connected in such a way that conclusions follow them
- When the conclusion can be deduced from the premises, these inferences are called
deductive
o E.g. men are bigger than mice, mice are bigger than ants, thus: men are bigger than
ants
- Among conclusive arguments are syllogisms: argument is false or doubtful because of the
first premises
o E.g. all politicians are liars, all members of the parliament are politicians, thus all
members of parliament are liars
- The conclusion of a deductive inference is true on 2 conditions:
o The argument must be valid or sound
o The premises must be true
Inductive arguments:
- generates new knowledge
- Among the non-conclusive arguments are inductive arguments
- They are generalizations from statements of lesser scope: what is true of a number of
members of a class is likely to be true of all members
o E.g. I know 5 psychologists and they are arrogant thus I think all psychologists are
arrogant
, - Inductive support for conclusion comes in degrees: it depends on the amount of evidence
in relation to the extent of the conclusion
- Science is empirical and inductive but it does not provide desired certainty, one can’t
anticipate future cases so there’s always room for skepticism the problem of induction
- Another problem with induction: one has to start with concepts and criteria to gather
observations (criteria for similarity) you should be able to tell whether a flamingo is a
pink swan or a separate species
The empirical cycle
- Stages: observation, induction, deduction, testing and evaluation
1. Observation:
o Empirical material is collected and ordered
o It’s systematic perception
o Tentative or implicit hypothesis formation also occurs in this stage
2. Induction:
o Phrasing of an explicit theory
o Explicit means the hypothesis yields specific verifiable predictions that can be
empirically tested
3. Deduction:
o Derivation of predictions/hypotheses from the theory
o One way is: operationalization: a concept is defined in terms of measurement
operations
o The goal is to formulate predictions, in an explicit, precise and unambiguous way
o Predictions must contain references to new situations, which are not already observed
4. Testing:
o Confrontation of the predictions with empirical data (actual data collection)
5. Evaluation:
o Results of the test are used as feedback for the more general theory from which the
hypotheses are derived
o Unexpected results may lead to new discoveries
PDF – Hughes Brian
- Astronomy is scientific because it uses empiricism to resolve uncertainties regarding the
contents of the universe
- Astrology is unscientific because it rejects empiricism, and freely relies on assertions that
are superstitious and traditional
- Astrology also adopts claims that turn out to be false when tested scientifically
Counternorms
Characteristics of scientific knowledge
- Historically, science was organized common sense
- The new scientific methods have a systematic nature that tries to formulate laws that apply
everywhere
1. Systematicity: theories must be applicable, coherent and if possible hierarchical, the
domain of application is specified at the outset
2. Well-defined methods: methods should also specify what counts as legitimate subject
matter
3. Reduction: ignoring certain aspects of reality at the descriptive level and reducing
phenomena to underlying principles at an explanatory level
4. Objectivity: being controllable, reliable and intersubjectively observable
5. Clarity: statements are phrased unambiguously, addressed to the public domain
6. Revisable: scientific knowledge is open, never definite and at all times revisable
- Testability of science goes beyond common-sense
- Common sense is dependent on unchanging conditions whereas science is explicit about its
assumptions
- Science is systematic and coherent in a way that everyday knowledge is not
- Science avoids inconsistencies but common sense is not concerned about that and tries to
build homogeneous network of concepts
- Manifest image: world of objects of common sense, is an illusion e.g. water
- Scientific image: world of particles and forces e.g. H2O
Deductive arguments:
- doesn’t generate new knowledge
- Arguments are sets of statements connected in such a way that conclusions follow them
- When the conclusion can be deduced from the premises, these inferences are called
deductive
o E.g. men are bigger than mice, mice are bigger than ants, thus: men are bigger than
ants
- Among conclusive arguments are syllogisms: argument is false or doubtful because of the
first premises
o E.g. all politicians are liars, all members of the parliament are politicians, thus all
members of parliament are liars
- The conclusion of a deductive inference is true on 2 conditions:
o The argument must be valid or sound
o The premises must be true
Inductive arguments:
- generates new knowledge
- Among the non-conclusive arguments are inductive arguments
- They are generalizations from statements of lesser scope: what is true of a number of
members of a class is likely to be true of all members
o E.g. I know 5 psychologists and they are arrogant thus I think all psychologists are
arrogant
, - Inductive support for conclusion comes in degrees: it depends on the amount of evidence
in relation to the extent of the conclusion
- Science is empirical and inductive but it does not provide desired certainty, one can’t
anticipate future cases so there’s always room for skepticism the problem of induction
- Another problem with induction: one has to start with concepts and criteria to gather
observations (criteria for similarity) you should be able to tell whether a flamingo is a
pink swan or a separate species
The empirical cycle
- Stages: observation, induction, deduction, testing and evaluation
1. Observation:
o Empirical material is collected and ordered
o It’s systematic perception
o Tentative or implicit hypothesis formation also occurs in this stage
2. Induction:
o Phrasing of an explicit theory
o Explicit means the hypothesis yields specific verifiable predictions that can be
empirically tested
3. Deduction:
o Derivation of predictions/hypotheses from the theory
o One way is: operationalization: a concept is defined in terms of measurement
operations
o The goal is to formulate predictions, in an explicit, precise and unambiguous way
o Predictions must contain references to new situations, which are not already observed
4. Testing:
o Confrontation of the predictions with empirical data (actual data collection)
5. Evaluation:
o Results of the test are used as feedback for the more general theory from which the
hypotheses are derived
o Unexpected results may lead to new discoveries
PDF – Hughes Brian
- Astronomy is scientific because it uses empiricism to resolve uncertainties regarding the
contents of the universe
- Astrology is unscientific because it rejects empiricism, and freely relies on assertions that
are superstitious and traditional
- Astrology also adopts claims that turn out to be false when tested scientifically
