Philosophical Foundations Of Science And Quantitative Analysis
Philosophical Foundations of ScienceAnd Quantitative AnalysisBy Dr. Robert FinkelsteinReferences:The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn, Third Edition, 1996Philosophical Foundations Of Physics, Rudolph Carnap, Edited By MartinGardner, 1966
Section 1: Definitions
Philosophy¾ Theory of the principles underlyingconduct, thought, knowledge, and thenature of the universe¾ Included are such fields as: logic,epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, andaesthetics¾ The love of - or search for - wisdom orknowledge¾ General principles or laws of a field ofknowledge¾ A system of principles for the conductof life¾ A study of human morals, character, andbehavior
Knowledge¾ The act, fact, or state of knowing¾ Acquaintance or familiarity with a fact or entity¾ Awareness¾ Understanding¾ All that has been grasped or perceived by themind¾ Learning and enlightenment¾ Body of facts, principles, etc. accumulated bymankind¾ A posteriori knowledge (i.e., “knowledge byacquaintance”)¾ Knowledge derived from experience (i.e.,senses)¾ A priori knowledge (i.e., “knowledge bydescription”)¾ Knowledge independent of experience (e.g.,mathematical knowledge) or transmitted fromothers having sensed experience
Epistemology¾ The study or theory of the nature, sources,and limits of knowledge¾ What is it to know something?¾ What counts as evidence for or against aparticular theory?¾ What is meant by a proof?¾ Is human knowledge possible at all?¾ Analytic propositions¾ The meaning of the predicate term is containedin the meaning of the subject term¾ Example: “All husbands are married” (“husband”includes in its meaning “being married”)¾ Synthetic propositions¾ The meaning of the predicate term is notcontained in the meaning of the subject term¾ Example: “All birds are blue”
Epistemology¾ Analytic vs. synthetic propositions¾ Most analytic propositions are a priori¾ Most synthetic propositions are a posteriori¾ Are a priori synthetic judgments possible?¾ Question posed by Kant; one of the most importantquestions in epistemology¾ Tautological propositions¾ Its constituent terms repeat themselves or they canbe reduced to terms that do so¾ The proposition is, fundamentally, of the form a a¾ Example: He is old because he has lived manyyears, and he has lived many years because he isold¾ No significant propositions can be derived fromtautologies¾ Tautologies are generally a priori, necessary, andanalytic¾ Significant statements are generally a posteriori,contingent, and synthetic
Epistemology¾ An epistemological fact: our perceptionssomehow respond to presented facts so as tosatisfy certain general conditions ofresponsiveness¾ To show how knowledge is possible, thephilosopher epistemologist only speculates onthe existence of the linkage between perceptionsand facts¾ Scientists (e.g., perceptual and physiologicalpsychologists) explain why perceptions respond tofacts, describing the mechanisms for achievingresponsiveness¾ Scientists (e.g., evolutionary psychologists)explain how the mechanism arose and wasselected by Darwinian processes¾ Thus philosophical and scientific activities differ¾ But the philosopher’s existential hypothesis maysuggest experiments and investigations to thescientist¾ A philosophical speculation may be sufficientlycomplete as to be amenable to an immediateempirical test
Ontology And Metaphysics¾ Ontology: the theory of being as such, i.e.,the basic characteristics of reality¾ Often taken as synonymous withmetaphysics (the science of ultimatereality)¾ What is ultimately real versus merelyapparent?¾ Examples: the real size of the moon versusits apparent size in the sky; the real color ofan object versus its color viewed in dimlight; the real structure of a desk (atoms,quarks, and empty space) versus itsapparent structure (e.g., solid wood)¾ Common sense is not a good guide toreality¾ Metaphysicians do not agree on thenature of ultimate reality
Science¾ Systemized knowledge derived fromobservation, study, and experimentation¾ A branch of knowledge or study, especiallyone concerned with establishing andsystemizing facts, principles, and methods,as by experiments and hypotheses¾ Any system of knowledge that is concernedwith the physical world and its phenomenaand that entails unbiased observations andsystematic experimentation¾ A pursuit of knowledge covering generaltruths or the operation of fundamental laws¾ A skill based on systemized training (e.g.,management science)¾ Research: careful, systematic, patient studyand investigation in some field of knowledge,undertaken to discover or establish facts orprinciples
Philosophy Of Science¾ The study of the scientific process or methodand its validity¾ Identifies different styles of explanationcharacteristic of different sciences (e.g.,psychology versus neurophysiology) or differentstages in a given science (e.g., Newtonianversus Einsteinian theories of gravity) todetermine how different explanatory stylesreflect the characteristic problems of differentscientific fields and periods¾ Central philosophical task: analyze clearly andexplicitly¾ Standards by which scientists decide whethersome interpretation is legitimate, justified, andconclusively established¾ Considerations that justify replacing a currentlyaccepted interpretation (e.g., Newton’s theory ofgravity) with a new alternative (e.g., Einstein’stheory of gravity)
From Data To Epiphanies¾ Data: Unconnected numbers, names,dates, etc.¾ Facts: Connected data¾ Knowledge: A particular assemblage offacts which can be taught and compressed;facts in context; actionable facts¾ Experience: Primarily from self-directedinteraction with the real world; internalizesknowledge and takes time to acquire¾ Shared visions: Philosophical andemotional collective understandingsfounded on our universality and notindividuality; motivating force inorganizations and gives purpose neededby leaders¾ Epiphanies: Level of perception beyondlogic and intuition; rare creative brilliance
From Data To Epiphanies¾¾¾¾¾Data * Order FactsFacts * Synthesis KnowledgeKnowledge * Perspective ExperienceExperience * Unifying Principles Shared VisionShared Visions * Metalogic Epiphanies
Section 2: Nature Of Normal Science
Definitions¾ Normal science¾ Research based on one or more past scientificachievements, achievements that someparticular scientific community acknowledgesfor a time as supplying the foundation for itsfurther practice (Kuhn)¾ Paradigm¾ A theory and body of knowledge sufficientlyunprecedented and compelling as to attract anenduring group of adherents away fromcompeting modes of scientific activity (Kuhn)¾ A coherent tradition of scientific research,including law, theory, application, andinstrumentation (Kuhn)¾ A pattern, example, or model; an overallconcept accepted by an intellectual communitybecause of its success in explaining a complexprocess, idea, or set of data
Normal Science And Paradigm¾ Paradigms provide the framework for normalscience¾ A common set of rules and standards for theory andresearch¾ Most researchers in a field share the paradigm – have aresearch consensus¾ The existence of a paradigm is a sign of a mature science¾ Research without a paradigm (e.g., in a new discipline) isopen to new discovery – but chaotic so fact-gathering isnearly random; phenomena are described and interpretedin many different ways¾ The transformation of a paradigm – the transitionfrom one paradigm to another – occurs in a scientificrevolution¾ Some examples; discovery of: general relativity; platetectonics; DNA; quanta and quarks; expansion of theuniverse; brain biochemicals; intelligent animal behavior;sulfur-based life cycles on sea floor vents; evolutionthrough natural selection¾ Do the social sciences have paradigms yet?
Paradigm¾ A framework for research andknowledge¾ Guides research¾ Determines relative importance of dataand facts¾ Serves as an idea filter¾ A framework can be good or bad¾ Good: provides a common basis fordiscourse and research and thedevelopment of research tools; is anefficient mechanism for research andadvancing knowledge¾ Bad: no thinking “outside the box” – lossof creativity; facts not within the acceptedparadigm are difficult to perceive or seenas irrelevant¾ A theory becomes a paradigm when it isgenerally accepted as superior tocompeting theories (i.e., explains andpredicts phenomena and facts better)
Paradigm¾ The accepted paradigm need not be perfect andexplain all facts and phenomena – just superior toalternative paradigms¾ An imperfect paradigm can explain phenomenasatisfactorily and lead to better instruments, moreaccurate and precise measurements, and more factsand phenomena¾ As facts and phenomena become unexplainableby the paradigm and errors accumulate, a newparadigm emerges¾ Some researchers cling to the old paradigm as anew generation embraces the new paradigm –eventually the fogies fade away¾ The evolution (or revolution) of paradigms leads toan increasingly solid basis for the science¾ Researchers take the paradigm for granted and neednot explain their research from first principles¾ This leads to less and less comprehension of the fieldby those outside it (because they are unfamiliar withthe latest paradigm)
Normal Science¾ The (imperfect) paradigm requires furtherarticulation and specification under “new ormore stringent conditions.” (Kuhn)¾ Normal science extends knowledge byincreasing the extent of the match betweenfacts and the paradigm’s predictions andby further articulating phenomena, facts,and theories already explained by theparadigm¾ Normal science is a type of “moppingup” operation, gathering and refiningfacts and phenomena explained andpredicted by the paradigm¾ Normal science is not interested inseeking new phenomena (and, in anyevent, would not perceive newphenomena outside the paradigm “box”)
Normal Science¾ Normal sciences focuses on:¾ Determining significant data andfacts¾ The paradigm guides the search andperception of data & facts¾ Matching facts with theory¾ The paradigm determines problems tobe solved (and the instrumentsneeded to solve problems)¾ Articulating theory¾ Determination of physical constants(e.g., Avogadro’s number)¾ Discovery of laws (e.g., Boyle’s law)¾ A paradigm may be a prerequisite fordiscovery of laws¾ Discovery of new ways of applyingparadigm to new areas of interest
Normal Science¾ Theoretical problems of normal science¾ Use “existing theory to predict factual information ofintrinsic value” (Kuhn)¾ Examples: astronomical ephemerides; radio propagationcurves; composition of human DNA¾ Often relegated by scientists to engineers & technicians¾ Discover new application of paradigm or increaseaccuracy and precision of existing application¾ Normal science excludes novel concepts andphenomena¾ Novel problems are often rejected by the researchcommunity as metaphysical¾ Normal science is highly constrained anddetermined¾ Rules derive from paradigms, but “paradigmscan guide research in the absence of rules”(Kuhn)
Section 3: Scientific Revolutions
Emergence Of Scientific Discoveries¾ Normal science¾ Highly cumulative; steady increase inscope and precision of scientific knowledge¾ Discoveries (new facts) and inventions(new theories)¾ Lead to anomalies in normal science¾ Increasing anomalies lead to crises, whichlead to a paradigm shift (replacement ofan old paradigm with a new one)¾ “Crises are a necessary preconditionfor the emergence of novel theories”(Kuhn)¾ Once it has achieved the status of aparadigm, a scientific theory is declaredinvalid only if an alternative theory isavailable to take its place¾ Crisis loosens the rules of normal science“puzzle solving” to allow a new paradigmto emerge
Emergence Of Scientific Discoveries¾ Scientists rejecting one paradigm always,simultaneously, accept another¾ The process of paradigm rejection andacceptance involves comparing bothparadigms with nature and each other¾ A scientist who rejects an accepted paradigm- the framework for the (current) normal science- without substituting a new paradigm, will becastigated and ostracized by his colleagues¾ Some anomalies are accepted asimperfections in normal science, whileothers generate crises and new paradigms¾ Some anomalies cause crises because ofproblems in:¾ Generalizing the paradigm¾ Applying the paradigm to practical applications¾ Further development of the normal sciencewhich transforms a trivial anomaly into asignificant anomaly (e.g., greater precision,more data, etc.)
Emergence Of Scientific Discoveries¾ Crises begin with the blurring of a paradigm¾ Rules for normal science research are loosened,resembling research during pre-paradigm period¾ Transition from paradigm in crisis to newparadigm (from which a new tradition of normalscience emerges):¾ Not a cumulative process¾ The field is reconstructed from newfundamentals¾ Elementary theoretical generalizations change,along with methods and applications¾ Much time (e.g., one or two generations) can passbefore awareness of breakdown of old paradigmand emergence or acceptance of new paradigm(e.g., more than 50 years to accept Newton’s lawsafter publication of Principia)¾ Resulting transition to new paradigm isscientific revolution
Scientific Revolutions¾ What are scientific revolutions and what istheir function in scientific development?¾ Why should a change in paradigm be called arevolution?¾ Scientific revolutions “seem revolutionary onlyto those whose paradigms are affected bythem” (Kuhn). Outsiders perceive them asnormal parts of the developmental process ofscience.¾ Scientific revolution: “Non-cumulativedevelopmental episodes in which an olderparadigm is replaced in whole or part by anincompatible new one” (Kuhn).¾ Competing paradigms are incompatible –scientists must choose one or the other¾ Supporters of a paradigm argue in favor of itwithin the context of the paradigm – leadingto circular arguments and tautology
Invention Of New Theories Three types of phenomena about whicha new theory may be developed: Phenomena already well-explained byexisting paradigms Rarely leads to new theories Phenomena whose nature is explained byexisting paradigms but whose details canbe understood only through furtherarticulation of the theory Rarely leads to new theories Phenomena with recognized anomalieswhich cannot be assimilated into existingparadigms Often leads to new theories Paradigms provide all phenomena –except anomalies – with a context incurrent theory and the scientist’sperception
Changes In The World Model¾ Changes in paradigms change the world model¾ Scientists adopt new instruments, look in newplaces for new phenomena¾ Perceptions change – familiar entities are seen ina different light and unfamiliar entities becomenoticeable¾ There is a change in the visual (and other senses)gestalt¾ Old scientists who worked within the old paradigmmust learn the new gestalt (i.e., they need aperceptual transformation) – new scientists areimmediately receptive and perceptive¾ With different world models, old scientists and newscientists can see different things when looking atthe same entities¾ Many scientists cannot adapt and do not convertto the new paradigm (e.g., Kelvin never acceptedelectromagnetic theory)¾ Continue to believe older paradigm will eventuallysolve all the problems
Accepting The New Paradigm¾ Reasons for accepting a new paradigm¾ Objective reason: better ability to solve problemsand make predictions¾ Subjective aesthetic reasons: simpler (e.g., Occam’srazor), neater, or more suitable explanations¾ Textbooks incorporate new paradigms andignore the revolutions that produced them¾ Students take the pedagogically presentedparadigms for granted and do not understand thehistorical wrenching mental shifts needed to switchfrom older to newer paradigms¾ Scientific progress is presented pedagogically aslinear and cumulative, rather than as punctuatedequilibrium (to borrow a term from a theory ofevolution)¾ “Does a field make progress because it is ascience, or is it a science because it makesprogress?” (Kuhn)
Section 4: Philosophy Of Science
Laws Of Science¾ Laws of science¾ Statements expressing observed repetitions orregularities as precisely as possible¾ Examples: fire is hot; ice is cold; a year is 365 days¾ Universal law¾ A regularity observed at all times and places¾ Examples: all fire is hot; all ice is cold¾ Statistical law¾ A regularity occurs only in some percentage ofcases¾ Examples: Ripe apples are red; a man’s lifeexpectancy is 73 years¾ Empirical laws¾ Based on observable properties (e.g., color orlength)¾ Theoretical laws¾ Based on non-observable properties or concepts(e.g., quanta)
Laws Of Science¾ Singular statements¾ A single fact; an event in a single timeand place¾ Example: I saw a brown and whitecollie at the corner of 5th and MapleStreets¾ Philosophy of science issue¾ How to go from singular statements toassertions of universal law¾ Science is based on¾ Direct observation of single facts¾ Many observations of single facts todiscover regularities¾ Expressing the regularities as laws¾ Laws¾ Explain facts already known¾ Predict facts not yet known
Laws Of Science¾ No explanation (in science or everyday life)can be given without referring to at leastone law¾ Fact explanations are really lawexplanations (where laws are tacitlyassumed)¾ Unless facts are connected with otherfacts by at least one law (explicitly stated ortacitly understood), they do not provideexplanations¾ Example: Fact: “I am hungry.” Why are youhungry? Response: “I have not eaten allday.”¾ The response is an implicit universal law,not merely a fact: people who do not eat allday experience the sensation of hunger¾ A universal law may also be implicit inscientific explanations (as well ascommon sense explanations)
Laws Of Science¾ Statistical laws¾ Because of ignorance (or, in the case ofquantum theory, perhaps underlying reality) astatistical law may be used instead of the strongeruniversal law¾ Example: 5% of the people taking this medicationwill have an adverse side effect¾ Logic laws¾ Laws of logic are universal but say nothingabout the real world¾ They state relationships that hold betweendefined concepts¾ Logical statements cannot be contested (i.e.,they are certainly true) because their truth isbased on the meanings of the terms involved inthe statements¾ Example: 1 2 3¾ Cannot be used as a basis for scientificexplanation because they cannot distinguish theactual universe from any other possible universe
Laws Of Science¾ Empirical laws¾ Are not certain like laws of logic – but they doreveal truths about our real world¾ Based on observed (through senses orinstruments) phenomena¾ How vs. why¾ In 19th century it was taught that scientistsshould only ask “how?” questions and not”why?” questions – which could only havemetaphysical answers¾ Now the “why?” question is O.K. – theassumption is that the questioner requests anexplanation in a framework of empirical laws¾ Explanations without laws are useless andmeaningless¾ Examples: explanations for characteristics oflife such as entelechy or the soul or a life force
Laws Of Science¾ Laws predict as well as explain phenomena¾ Predict new facts not yet observed¾ The law may be statistical or universal¾ Example: there is a 75% chance of raintomorrow¾ People use predictions based on laws inevery act of human behavior that involvesdeliberate choice¾ Example: To stop the car you are driving youstep on the brake because you know theuniversal law that stepping on the brake willstop the car (that the car will stop is a fact notyet observed)¾ Example: You pour milk into the glass becauseyou know the universal law that, on the earth,gravity causes the milk to fall downward into theglass (you would not do this while in orbit aboutthe earth)¾ A general theory is a system of laws
Induction¾ How do we determine laws?¾ Laws constitute indirect knowledge –fact
Philosophical Foundations Of Physics, Rudolph Carnap, Edited By Martin Gardner, 1966 Philosophical Foundations of Science And Quantitative Analysis. Section 1: Definitions. Philosophy . ¾A study of human morals, character, and behavior. Knowledge
PHILOSOPHICAL READINGS ONLINE JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY Philosophical Readings, ISSN 2036-4989, features articles, discussions, translations, reviews, and bibliographical information on all philosophical disciplines. Philosophical Readings is devoted to the promotion of competent
This is an intensive course of study of the historical and philosophical foundations of music education. This course will encapsulate both the history of music education in the United States from the Colonial period to modern times, and a philosophical emphasis on twentieth and twenty-first century thought and movements in American music education.
genuinely philosophical basis to education. An attempt is being made here to analyse the various philosophical foundations of education—ontological, axiolog-ical, ethical, epistemological and logical—with a view to establishing the inevitability of philosophy for the entire gamut of the process of education. These
philosophical canon -- a causal story, a set of core philosophical questions and a set of . inquiry that have fallen out of fashion yet are currently relevant. . They each develop their own philosophical systems in response to perceived strengths and weaknesses in Descartes's account, preserving the epistemological insight that knowledge is
A Four-Monthly Philosophical Online Journal Sevilla Philosophical Readings, a four-monthly journal, ISSN 2036-4989, features articles, discussions, trans-lations, reviews, and bibliographical information on all philosophical disciplines. Philosophical Readings is devoted to the promotion of competent and de-
A Philosophical Critique of Personality-Type Theory in Psychology: Esyenck, Myers-Briggs, and Jung by John Davenport (draft from 1998) I. Introduction Today, any credible philosophical attempt to discuss personhood must take some position on the proper relation between the philosophical analysis of topics like action, intention, emotion,
Philosophical Foundations of Transpersonal Psychology 3. ambivalence toward theoretical articulation confusion about foundations of "human" sciences significant reason has to do with the fact that transpersonal psychology, although often drawing on ancient sources, has had much of its attention directed to "data" which is newand
Academic Phrasebank. Setting objectives –student tip “It is important that your chosen research question is clearly focused and well written; answering it must be achievable in the time available to you!” Your research question and the objectives to achieve it. Your research title Your dissertation title is important as it tells your reader what your dissertation is about ! Titles often .
