Reading questions Philosophy of the
Humanities
Ch. 1
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 of scientific practise and products
eg. How do scientists connect theory to reality (in what labs, with what
theories?)
Normative: normative assessment of scientific practices and products
eg. How should scientists connect theory to reality (logically,
methodologically, ethically, politically)
eg. what distinguishes science from pseudoscience and opinion? (how
can we differentiate a scientific practice that is predicated on
pseudoscience and opinion)
Ch. 3
2. What is the problem of demarcation (p. 91)?
A series of debates that try to distinguish episteme (universal, timeless
necessary truths) vs doxa ( pseudoscientific opinions/ perspective-
dependent beliefs)
It asks what distinguishes good science from pseudoscientific opinions?
3. Logical Empiricism endorsed a verification criterion of meaning (p.
77). Explain what this criterion entails.
Verificationism, also known as the verification principle or the verifiability criterion
of meaning, is the philosophical doctrine which maintains that only statements
that are empirically verifiable (i.e. verifiable through the senses) are cognitively
meaningful, or else they are truths of logic (tautologies)
Verifiability theory of meaning
knowing the meaning of a sentence is knowing how to verify it by means
of observation
, verifiability = testability
strong empiricist principl e: experience is the only source of meaning,
anything beyond that is meaningless
scientific claims are verifiable and hence have meaning
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.
you can not verify universal laws . It is impossible due to the problem of
induction
It si logically impossible to verify every instance covered by a law
it is in principle always possible that the law will be refuted by future
observations
so confirmation is also no solution
Hence, verification is no solution to the demarcation problem
there is no thing as a universal law
5. Popper endorsed falsifiability as a solution to the problem of demarcation
(p. 91). Explain what this criterion entails.
the demarcation problem can be solved through falsification via deduction and
not verifiability through induction
6. How does the inductive method of verification differ from the
deductive method of falsification (p. 92)?
Poppers alternative: Critical Rationalism
Justification of (through) induction is impossible: all knowledge is
hypothetical there will always be a gap
Growth of scientific knowledge can be captured by means of falsifiability
and deductive testing
So a completely different take on the method of science
Falsifiability
Claim should have the potential to be refuted by some possible
observation
claim needs to forbid certain states of affairs
observation is theory laden
no such thing a natural observation
, theories as search lights over reality
tomorrow it will rain or not > not falsifiable
all swans are white > falsifiable by the singular basic sentence there is at least
one black swan
7. What is the key difference between an observation sentence (Logical
Empiricism) and a basic sentence (Popper) (p. 94)?
A statement that is not based on the truth of another statement and is, rather,
taken from a direct observation is called an observation sentence.
Testing Theories
Popper: knowledge is founded on observation, but can be corrected in the
light of observation
Testing theories by means of basic sentences
these are theory laden
their acceptance in the testing of theories is based n
convention/agreement
no introduction of non-falsifiable and hoc hypotheses when basic
sentences that report on observed states of affairs falsify the theory
the more potential falsifiers of a theory the more possible states of
affairs it precludes, the better the theory
Ch. 4
8. Kuhn distinguished two different meanings of the term paradigm(pp.
118-119). Which meanings?
A. Exemplar: model of good scientific practice
menders experiments with peas
B. Disciplinary matrix: whole way of doing science is some particular field;
package of claims about the world, methods for gathering and analysing data ad
shared values for theory appraisal
eg modern molecular genetics
larger and holds together a lager discipline
9. Kuhn’s notion of normal science contradicts Popper’s views on
falsification (p. 119). Explain why this is the case.
"In addition to being dominated by a paradigm, normal science has an- other main
feature, according to Kuhn. Contrary to Popper, he argued that scientists working
Humanities
Ch. 1
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 of scientific practise and products
eg. How do scientists connect theory to reality (in what labs, with what
theories?)
Normative: normative assessment of scientific practices and products
eg. How should scientists connect theory to reality (logically,
methodologically, ethically, politically)
eg. what distinguishes science from pseudoscience and opinion? (how
can we differentiate a scientific practice that is predicated on
pseudoscience and opinion)
Ch. 3
2. What is the problem of demarcation (p. 91)?
A series of debates that try to distinguish episteme (universal, timeless
necessary truths) vs doxa ( pseudoscientific opinions/ perspective-
dependent beliefs)
It asks what distinguishes good science from pseudoscientific opinions?
3. Logical Empiricism endorsed a verification criterion of meaning (p.
77). Explain what this criterion entails.
Verificationism, also known as the verification principle or the verifiability criterion
of meaning, is the philosophical doctrine which maintains that only statements
that are empirically verifiable (i.e. verifiable through the senses) are cognitively
meaningful, or else they are truths of logic (tautologies)
Verifiability theory of meaning
knowing the meaning of a sentence is knowing how to verify it by means
of observation
, verifiability = testability
strong empiricist principl e: experience is the only source of meaning,
anything beyond that is meaningless
scientific claims are verifiable and hence have meaning
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.
you can not verify universal laws . It is impossible due to the problem of
induction
It si logically impossible to verify every instance covered by a law
it is in principle always possible that the law will be refuted by future
observations
so confirmation is also no solution
Hence, verification is no solution to the demarcation problem
there is no thing as a universal law
5. Popper endorsed falsifiability as a solution to the problem of demarcation
(p. 91). Explain what this criterion entails.
the demarcation problem can be solved through falsification via deduction and
not verifiability through induction
6. How does the inductive method of verification differ from the
deductive method of falsification (p. 92)?
Poppers alternative: Critical Rationalism
Justification of (through) induction is impossible: all knowledge is
hypothetical there will always be a gap
Growth of scientific knowledge can be captured by means of falsifiability
and deductive testing
So a completely different take on the method of science
Falsifiability
Claim should have the potential to be refuted by some possible
observation
claim needs to forbid certain states of affairs
observation is theory laden
no such thing a natural observation
, theories as search lights over reality
tomorrow it will rain or not > not falsifiable
all swans are white > falsifiable by the singular basic sentence there is at least
one black swan
7. What is the key difference between an observation sentence (Logical
Empiricism) and a basic sentence (Popper) (p. 94)?
A statement that is not based on the truth of another statement and is, rather,
taken from a direct observation is called an observation sentence.
Testing Theories
Popper: knowledge is founded on observation, but can be corrected in the
light of observation
Testing theories by means of basic sentences
these are theory laden
their acceptance in the testing of theories is based n
convention/agreement
no introduction of non-falsifiable and hoc hypotheses when basic
sentences that report on observed states of affairs falsify the theory
the more potential falsifiers of a theory the more possible states of
affairs it precludes, the better the theory
Ch. 4
8. Kuhn distinguished two different meanings of the term paradigm(pp.
118-119). Which meanings?
A. Exemplar: model of good scientific practice
menders experiments with peas
B. Disciplinary matrix: whole way of doing science is some particular field;
package of claims about the world, methods for gathering and analysing data ad
shared values for theory appraisal
eg modern molecular genetics
larger and holds together a lager discipline
9. Kuhn’s notion of normal science contradicts Popper’s views on
falsification (p. 119). Explain why this is the case.
"In addition to being dominated by a paradigm, normal science has an- other main
feature, according to Kuhn. Contrary to Popper, he argued that scientists working
