Quiz 2 Study Guide - Quiz 2 review PDF

Preview

Summary

Quiz 2 review...

Description

Quiz #2 3/22/19 - Popper through Lakatos: Summary of Each Account:

Hempel: Account of Scientific Methodology - Hypothetico-deductivism Steps: 1. Come up with a hypothesis 2. Check to see what the hypothesis predicts or explains 3. Determine whether or not the test implications (what the hypothesis under consideration implies about the world) are true Values - Introduced ideas about the burden of proof being on the hypothesis; according to Hempel, successful tests of a hypothesis only yield evidence in favor of a hypothesis. Every hypothesis has an implication attached to it which can be used to support or refute it. Limitations - Coming up with a hypothesis through intuition and then seeing what it explains undermines the hypothesis’ value. Deductive continuity is not required to achieve scientific knowledge.

Popper: Account of Scientific Methodology - Falsificationism Steps: 1. Invent a hypothesis by a creative act of the imagination 2. Deduce a test implication from the hypothesis 3. Test the hypothesis with an experiment or field observation based on the implication

Values - Non-committal; gives equal weight to each hypothesis and considers them only possible, not probable. Limitations - A single failed test completely discredits the original hypothesis, when in reality, there could be many reasons for the test’s failure aside from the hypothesis. Flawed by the problems of induction and demarcation. Tested theories are also held to the same scrutiny as untested theories, thus reducing the value of testing a hypothesis. Conclusion is impossible.

Duhem: Account of Scientific Methodology - Duhem’s Falsificationism Contains the same steps as Popper, but adopts a more holistic way of considering them. Values - Posited that Popper’s account was not deductive because to truly falsify something, far more than deductive reasoning is required. Allows for continual testing of a theory as hypotheses can be reworked or given new auxiliary assumptions as opposed to being outright rejected. Limitations - Similar to Popper; risky tests of hypotheses do not allow for nuanced understandings of their respective hypotheses.

Kuhn: Account of Scientific Methodology: Normal Science, Revolutionary Science, and the Paradigm Values - The paradigm accounts for all of the theories and tools used by scientists in scientific practice and reflects what scientists actually do (ie. science as a puzzle-solving activity). Provides a guaranteed solution, rules for pursuing it, and criteria for knowing when it has been achieved. Rejected the hypothesis as the exclusive unit of scientific analysis. Limitations - Revolutionary science is a controversial mess which discredits scientific practice

and states that cultural factors are responsible for paradigm shifts, which result in a complete discarding of the past paradigm. Does not solve the problem of demarcation as pseudoscience is just as susceptible to paradigm shifts as normal science. Dogmatic position presents science as an isolated and privileged discipline. Fails to explain how revolutions in scientific ideology occur; doubt undermines the paradigm, as it’s unexplained in Kuhn’s account.

Lakatos: Account of Scientific Methodology - Sophisticated Methodological Falsificationism/The Research Program Steps: 1. A theory, T, can be falsified if and only if another theory, T’, has been proposed with the following characteristics: T’ has excess empirical content (introduces or explains novel facts), explains the previous success of T, and corroborates its excess empirical content with a risky test. Values - Introduces the series of theories as the basic unit of analysis. Necessitates that theory shifts must be both theoretically (predict new facts) and empirically (new facts are accepted over the old) progressive in order to occur. Argues that theories cannot be conclusively proven or disproven and provides the means for series of theories to build upon each other without discarding past progress. His rational train of thought allows for competing theories to both exist and be valid explanations for stimuli. Limitations - The rationality of science is not purely logical or objective; it is a volatile discipline which just happens to yield objective fact (product of creativity, as Hempel suggested?). Does not offer criteria for how long to stick with an ailing research program before abandoning it;

improbability of solving the crisis of rationality....