Philosophy of Science
Class 4
Philosophy of Science Debate
Rules of Play
Each team member must ask 1 question and answer 1 question.
Teams have 30 sec. to deliver question, 30 sec. to correct vague
question.
Teams have 1 minute to prepare an answer
Teams have 1 minute to answer question.
Scoring Rules:
Teams earn 1 point for good question, ½ point for so/so question, 0 pt
for poor question.
Teams earn 1 point for good quality answer. ½ point for so/so
answer, 0 pt for poor answer.
Teams can earn 1 point by “rescuing” a poorly-answered question, or
expanding on a so/so answer.
Philosophy of Science Debate
Rescuing questions:
If question not fully answered, other teams have opportunity to rescue.
If 2 teams both wish to rescue, will choose with coin-toss.
Play duration:
Each member of each team must ask 1 question and answer 1
question, NOT counting “rescues”.
If teams run out of questions, Kent will supply new ones.
Order of asking/answering:
Asker team:
Team that just answered
Answer team: Kent determines
Philosophy of Science Debate
Grading
8-10
Pts
A
Full credit (5 grade pts)
6-7
Pts
B
4 grade pts
4-5
Pts
C
3 grade pts
3
Pts
D
1 grade pt
0-2
Pts
F
0 grade pts
Karl Popper
“Received Wisdom” vs. Induction
Received Wisdom:
Nightmares due to excess black bile.
Cure: Bleeding.
Induction critique:
Where is this black bile? Show me!
Bleeding works? Show me!
Induction
Induction: General statements arise from specific observations.
Obs. 1: People with nightmares have past traumas.
Obs. 2: Talking about traumas relieves nightmares
General rule: Undisclosed bad events lead to psych. Distress
Problems with Induction:
1. Infinite regress: Where is “ground zero” for observation?
a. Nightmares? Or all bad dreams? What makes a dream
“bad”? What makes a dream a dream? Are dreams real?
b. Disclosure: Talking only? Or talking with feeling? What’s
a feeling? What is an authentic feeling? Are emotions real?
2. Reliance on “facts”: “Observable Facts” are building blocks
for induction. But humans are fallible, can misperceive, so
“facts” are at best probabilities. But can you build upon
probabilities?
Science NOT About Discovery;
About Verification
Creation of new ideas is a problem of empirical Psychology:
[YEE HAW!!!]
It is NOT a scientific problem.
How we acquire new info. Is province of psych. of knowledge.
How we evaluate new info is the province of science.
Science is NOT the inspiration of discovery, but “rational
reconstruction”.
Problem of Demarcation
Demarcation Point (DP): Where science differentiates itself from
math, philosophy, humanities in creating knowledge.
DP for positivists: Sensory experience.
Theory based on concepts
Concepts based on experience
Experience based on senses
Evolution  Natural selection
Natural sel.  seeing adaptations
Adaps. Experienced  sight, sound.
Science for positivists: Only things reducible to observations.
“Metaphysics”: Concepts, beliefs that cannot be directly observed.
Examples: Mind, belief, hope, “discovery”
Positivists condemn metaphysics as “twaddle”
Positivists’ Conundrum in Psychology
Positivists believe that only observables count as science.
But how do you observe psychological basics?
“Structuralists” used “introspectionists”-- a classic case of infinite
regress.
Experience as Method
Popper poses three criterion of science:
1. Synthetic: The pieces (theories, concepts, observations)
must fit together; cannot contradict each other.
2. Satisfy criterion of demarcation: Must relate to real world, not a
matter of metaphysics. I.e., such issues as “why do we exist” and
“what’s the purpose of life” “what is ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are
metaphysical questions.
3. Distinct from other knowledge domains: How is science different
from arts, philosophy, history, math?
Falsifiablity as Criterion of Demarcation
Scientific method about exposing to falsification every aspect of
system to be tested.
“Positive mood enhances creativity”
Each aspect of this statement should be challenge-able.
There is no need to both verify and falsify. Sufficient to just falsify;
do this and “verification” takes care of itself.
Falsifiablity as Criterion of Demarcation
Scientific method about exposing to falsification every aspect of
system to be tested.
“Positive mood enhances creativity”
Each aspect of this statement should be challenge-able.
There is no need to both verify and falsify. Sufficient to just falsify;
do this and “verification” takes care of itself.