Reading_Questions_PoH1
Book: History and Philosophy of the Humanities: an Introduction (Leezenberg 2018)
_______________________________________________
Week 1: Logical Empiricism, Critical Rationalism, and Kuhn
1. Both philosophy of science and philosophy of humanities have a double task, viz. a
descriptive task and a normative task (pp. 16-18 Leezenberg 2018). Explain these tasks.
Descriptive: description and explanations.
- Eg: The river is flowing quickly” “Brutus killed Ceasar”.
Normative: How things should be, it provides an evaluation.
- Eg: Jazz is better than classical music.
→ Are normative claims anything more than opinions? That’s what philosophers are debating.
2. What is the problem of demarcation (p. 91)?
The demarcation problem attempts to distinguish good science from pseudoscience and
opinion.
Series of debates that differentiates between:
- Episteme vs Doxa (Certain knowledge vs common opinion)
- Platos’ Rationalism vs Aristotles’ Empiricism
3. Logical Empiricism endorsed a verification criterion of meaning (p. 77). Explain what this
criterion entails.
Verification criterion: the only verifiability is through sensory experiences, such as observations
that are done through neutral observation.
, - Eg.: All swans are white
4. According to Popper, the verification criterion is useless for distinguishing universal laws
from metaphysical statements (p. 90). Explain Popper’s argumentation for this claim.
Useless because:
1) The criterion itself is not verifiable
2) The problem of induction: universal laws resist verification and confirmation
3) The neutral experience assumption is false
→ There is always something that can counter a universal law.
- Eg: All swans are white is not verifiable, there could always exist a black swan.
5. Popper endorsed falsifiability as a solution to the problem of demarcation (p. 91). Explain
what this criterion entails.
Falsifiability: begin with a larger hypothesis, then find an example that proves it and falsifies it.
- Use deduction
- Critical rationalism approach
The idea is:
- Knowledge is not founded on observation but can be corrected by it
- A good theory is not one that explains everything but that allows science to grow
(falsifiable)
6. How does the inductive method of verification differ from the deductive method of
falsification (p. 92)?
Inductive: Based on observation which leads to → general conclusions
Deductive: Starts with theory then uses → observations to falsify it
, 7. What is the key difference between an observation sentence (Logical Empiricism) and a
basic sentence (Popper) (p. 94)?
Observation sentence: argues that observations are neutral.
Basic sentence: argues sentences are theory-laden (affected by the presupposition of the
investigator)
8. Kuhn distinguished two different meanings of the term paradigm (pp. 118-119). Which
meanings?
1) Exemplar: a model of good scientific practices
- Sets the example that scientists will come back to
2) Disciplinary Matrix:
- Broader than Examplar
- Shared across disciplines
- Normalized practices across the field
- Is hostile to anomalies (being proven wrong)
- They can always find a way to explain deviations
9. Kuhn’s notion of normal science contradicts Popper’s views on falsification (p. 119). Explain
why this is the case.
Kuhn: there is no real falsification in practice.
- Normal science is in a constant state of puzzle-solving to elaborate and refine theories
- Scientists attempt to ward off falsification, attempt to not refute theories
10. Kuhn argued that: “When paradigms enter, as they must, into a debate about paradigm
choice, their role is necessarily circular. Each group uses its own paradigm in that paradigm’s
defense.” (Kuhn 1962, p. 91; quoted in Leezenberg 2018, p. 122). Explain what Kuhn meant
with his claim that the use of one’s own paradigm in defending that paradigm is circular.
Kuhn argues that:
- Paradigm choice: you only reject a paradigm when they have accepted another one as
suited to ‘solve the puzzle’.
Book: History and Philosophy of the Humanities: an Introduction (Leezenberg 2018)
_______________________________________________
Week 1: Logical Empiricism, Critical Rationalism, and Kuhn
1. Both philosophy of science and philosophy of humanities have a double task, viz. a
descriptive task and a normative task (pp. 16-18 Leezenberg 2018). Explain these tasks.
Descriptive: description and explanations.
- Eg: The river is flowing quickly” “Brutus killed Ceasar”.
Normative: How things should be, it provides an evaluation.
- Eg: Jazz is better than classical music.
→ Are normative claims anything more than opinions? That’s what philosophers are debating.
2. What is the problem of demarcation (p. 91)?
The demarcation problem attempts to distinguish good science from pseudoscience and
opinion.
Series of debates that differentiates between:
- Episteme vs Doxa (Certain knowledge vs common opinion)
- Platos’ Rationalism vs Aristotles’ Empiricism
3. Logical Empiricism endorsed a verification criterion of meaning (p. 77). Explain what this
criterion entails.
Verification criterion: the only verifiability is through sensory experiences, such as observations
that are done through neutral observation.
, - Eg.: All swans are white
4. According to Popper, the verification criterion is useless for distinguishing universal laws
from metaphysical statements (p. 90). Explain Popper’s argumentation for this claim.
Useless because:
1) The criterion itself is not verifiable
2) The problem of induction: universal laws resist verification and confirmation
3) The neutral experience assumption is false
→ There is always something that can counter a universal law.
- Eg: All swans are white is not verifiable, there could always exist a black swan.
5. Popper endorsed falsifiability as a solution to the problem of demarcation (p. 91). Explain
what this criterion entails.
Falsifiability: begin with a larger hypothesis, then find an example that proves it and falsifies it.
- Use deduction
- Critical rationalism approach
The idea is:
- Knowledge is not founded on observation but can be corrected by it
- A good theory is not one that explains everything but that allows science to grow
(falsifiable)
6. How does the inductive method of verification differ from the deductive method of
falsification (p. 92)?
Inductive: Based on observation which leads to → general conclusions
Deductive: Starts with theory then uses → observations to falsify it
, 7. What is the key difference between an observation sentence (Logical Empiricism) and a
basic sentence (Popper) (p. 94)?
Observation sentence: argues that observations are neutral.
Basic sentence: argues sentences are theory-laden (affected by the presupposition of the
investigator)
8. Kuhn distinguished two different meanings of the term paradigm (pp. 118-119). Which
meanings?
1) Exemplar: a model of good scientific practices
- Sets the example that scientists will come back to
2) Disciplinary Matrix:
- Broader than Examplar
- Shared across disciplines
- Normalized practices across the field
- Is hostile to anomalies (being proven wrong)
- They can always find a way to explain deviations
9. Kuhn’s notion of normal science contradicts Popper’s views on falsification (p. 119). Explain
why this is the case.
Kuhn: there is no real falsification in practice.
- Normal science is in a constant state of puzzle-solving to elaborate and refine theories
- Scientists attempt to ward off falsification, attempt to not refute theories
10. Kuhn argued that: “When paradigms enter, as they must, into a debate about paradigm
choice, their role is necessarily circular. Each group uses its own paradigm in that paradigm’s
defense.” (Kuhn 1962, p. 91; quoted in Leezenberg 2018, p. 122). Explain what Kuhn meant
with his claim that the use of one’s own paradigm in defending that paradigm is circular.
Kuhn argues that:
- Paradigm choice: you only reject a paradigm when they have accepted another one as
suited to ‘solve the puzzle’.
