PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
HC2 PSE
Fallacy-> a reasoning error that might weaken the argument
- Ad Hominem-> attacking the person instead of the argument itself
- Appeal to authority-> just because somebody with authority says something, doesn’t
mean it is true
- Reductio ad Hitlerum-> someone bad did something that you are doing, so that thing is
bad
- Straw Man Fallacy-> distorting or misrepresenting someone’s argument in order to
make it easier to defeat; attacking an argument that the person is not necessarily
arguing to defeat the original argument
- Appeal to tradition-> ‘tradition’ is not always good
- Ad populum-> just because the majority beliefs something, doesn’t mean it is true
- Circular reasoning-> beginning with what you plan on ending up with
- Cherry picking-> only using evidence that supports your argument
- Post hoc ergo propter hoc-> mistaking correlation for causation
- Moving the goalposts-> continually asking for more and more evidence
- Anecdotal-> personal experience does not prove or disprove an argument
- Burden of proof-> claiming that an argument is true or false based on the lack of proof
- Cognitive dissonance-> the psychological conflict resulting from incongruous beliefs and
attitudes held simultaneously
- Sum-cost fallacy-> if someone has invested in something, then you’re not ready to give
it up
- Offense fallacy-> you can’t say that because it’s offensive
HC3 PSE
What is science?-> but first, what does it mean to define something?
Plato-> what is a chair?; very hard to define exactly what something is
|
Physical things are imperfect copies of the perfect form in the ideal/transcendental world
|
Our mind is from the ideal/transcendental world and in the physical world, we ‘remember’ or
‘recognize’ things
|
Plato’s essentialism-> they all share a thing that is essential
Wittgenstein-> why do we all recognize things that we cannot define specifically?
|
Family resemblance-> things share characteristics, not an essence, but just some characteristics
, We might lack a clear definition of science, but that does not mean we cannot talk about it
Science from Family resemblance
Science is an attempt to gain objective knowledge about the world, but philosophy doesn’t do
that necessarily
Three pillars of science
Naturalism:
- View of the world that takes account only of natural elements and forces, excluding the
supernatural or spiritual, and that holds that the scientific method should be used to
investigate all areas of reality
o Presocratic philosophers went from mythos (supernaturalism) to logos
(naturalism)
Empiricism:
- Hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world
rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation
Theory:
- Putting data coherently together in a model to explain causal relations and to gain new
knowledge by prediction
Science feels unnatural, we have to learn it-> formulas, probability, going against intuition
Scientific methods:
Deduction:
- Valid inference from more general premises to a more specific conclusion. It’s always
100% certain, but it only works in closed systems-> if the premises are true, the
conclusion must be true
- Top-down reasoning
- Examples: Mathematics, logic
- Problem: How do we find the basic premises (i.e. axioms) to build the deductive system?
- Syllogism:
o All humans are mortal (premise)
o Socrates is a human (premise)
HC2 PSE
Fallacy-> a reasoning error that might weaken the argument
- Ad Hominem-> attacking the person instead of the argument itself
- Appeal to authority-> just because somebody with authority says something, doesn’t
mean it is true
- Reductio ad Hitlerum-> someone bad did something that you are doing, so that thing is
bad
- Straw Man Fallacy-> distorting or misrepresenting someone’s argument in order to
make it easier to defeat; attacking an argument that the person is not necessarily
arguing to defeat the original argument
- Appeal to tradition-> ‘tradition’ is not always good
- Ad populum-> just because the majority beliefs something, doesn’t mean it is true
- Circular reasoning-> beginning with what you plan on ending up with
- Cherry picking-> only using evidence that supports your argument
- Post hoc ergo propter hoc-> mistaking correlation for causation
- Moving the goalposts-> continually asking for more and more evidence
- Anecdotal-> personal experience does not prove or disprove an argument
- Burden of proof-> claiming that an argument is true or false based on the lack of proof
- Cognitive dissonance-> the psychological conflict resulting from incongruous beliefs and
attitudes held simultaneously
- Sum-cost fallacy-> if someone has invested in something, then you’re not ready to give
it up
- Offense fallacy-> you can’t say that because it’s offensive
HC3 PSE
What is science?-> but first, what does it mean to define something?
Plato-> what is a chair?; very hard to define exactly what something is
|
Physical things are imperfect copies of the perfect form in the ideal/transcendental world
|
Our mind is from the ideal/transcendental world and in the physical world, we ‘remember’ or
‘recognize’ things
|
Plato’s essentialism-> they all share a thing that is essential
Wittgenstein-> why do we all recognize things that we cannot define specifically?
|
Family resemblance-> things share characteristics, not an essence, but just some characteristics
, We might lack a clear definition of science, but that does not mean we cannot talk about it
Science from Family resemblance
Science is an attempt to gain objective knowledge about the world, but philosophy doesn’t do
that necessarily
Three pillars of science
Naturalism:
- View of the world that takes account only of natural elements and forces, excluding the
supernatural or spiritual, and that holds that the scientific method should be used to
investigate all areas of reality
o Presocratic philosophers went from mythos (supernaturalism) to logos
(naturalism)
Empiricism:
- Hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world
rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation
Theory:
- Putting data coherently together in a model to explain causal relations and to gain new
knowledge by prediction
Science feels unnatural, we have to learn it-> formulas, probability, going against intuition
Scientific methods:
Deduction:
- Valid inference from more general premises to a more specific conclusion. It’s always
100% certain, but it only works in closed systems-> if the premises are true, the
conclusion must be true
- Top-down reasoning
- Examples: Mathematics, logic
- Problem: How do we find the basic premises (i.e. axioms) to build the deductive system?
- Syllogism:
o All humans are mortal (premise)
o Socrates is a human (premise)
