8

science is based on obsevable facts

to justifu the special status of knowledge vs other kinds of knowledge ( vodoo vs chemistry)

this created the demarcaition problem

what distinguishes science form nin science ?

difference psychologist from fortune teller

*problem: astrologists do make claims that are falsifiable ( and frequantly falisified) *

1. how to derive theory form observable facts ?
2. cannot arrive at general law based on a finite nr of observations
3. we need general laws( gold standard of scientific knowledge)

falsification

the state of a hypothesis is falsifiabke just in case there is some piece of evidence that ***could*** conclusevly refute it

his solution to the demarcation problem

what sets scientific theories aside is that they are potentially falsifiable

*againt inductivism *

by making definite predictions, we rule out a range of observable states

observations are guided by teheory and are presupossed

he argue that theoryies are human constructions in attempt to soleve problems or questions about universe

afterwards we rigurioulty test them by observation and experiment

exmaple :

1. "The rain alweys falls on Friday" = falsifiable
2. "It's raining or it's not raining " = not falsifiable

1) man pushes a child into water with the intention of drowning him

2) man dives in water to save a child

psychoanalysis can explain both of these seemingly condradictory actions :

1) action was driven by repressed component of id ( unconscious)

2) the actions resulted form a succesful sublimation of this exact same sort of desire by ego and superego

the problem is that is you can exmaplin the same behaviour in two ways than either is correct

did not consider psychoanalyis a scienc e

as we cannot give a coherent explanation of this person's behaviour

we cannot predic nor excude behaviour acoording to psychoanalyis

it is impossible to arrive at universal laws by logical deductions or basis alone

it is possible to perform logical deductions , starting o=from sigular observations

"A raven which was not black was seen at place x at time t"

↓

logically follows form " All raven are black "

↓

conclusion " Not all ravens are black "

only by ruling out a set of logically possible observations statements that a law is informative

if unafalisfiable then it does not tell us anyting about the world

makes very **wide ranging claims** about the world

is **highly falsifiable**

and **resists falsification** whenever put to the test

1. Mars moves in an ellipse around the sun
2. All planets move in ellipse around the sun

**(b) has a higher status then (a) as scientific piece of knowledge :**

(b) tells us all that (a) tells us and more

(b) is more falsifiable than (a)

if observations would falsify (a) then they would falsify (b) as well but not in reverse

obervations falsifying (b) do not matter to the fasification of (a)

potential falsifiers of (a) are a subcalss of potential clasifiers for (b)

more falsifiable = better

1. clarity
2. precision

good theory is clear about what it tries to explain

the less vagueness the better

a good theory is preciese in what it tries to explain

1. "responses that produce **a certain effect** in dogs in a particular situation become more likely to occur again in that situation "

vs

b. "responses that produce **a statisfying effec**t in dogs in a particular situation become more likely to occur again in that situation "

the historical evolution of science consists of falsifiable theroies, each more falsifiable that the predecessor

= a modification in theory ( addition of an extra postulate or a change in some exisiting postualtes ) thhat has no testable concequnces that were not already testable consequnces of the unmodified theory

"Bread noureses"

↓

in a viallge : normal weath → normal making of bread→ normal bread → people became ill and many died

↓

theory " All bread nourishes" was falsified

↓

theory chagned to " All bread, with the exception of the brad in that village, nourishhes" = ad hoc modification

now it is falifiable again

attemplt to overcome a difficulty

All bread nourishes except brea dmade form wheat contaminated by a specific kind of fungus

this can be tested by investigating the wheat from which the poisnuous bread was made

scientific progress is achieved trough bold, highly falsifiable conjuctures followed by ruthless attempts to falsify them

the greater the nr of conjucted theories that are confronted by the realities , the more speculative those conjunctions are, the grater advances in sciene will be

1. **the confirmation of bold conjunctures** = discovering something that is considered unlikley in the light of background knowledge
2. **the falsification of cautious conjuctures** = what was regrded as true is in fact false

however we learn little form the falsification of bold conjectures or confirmation of cautious conjenctures

bold conjecture is falsified: yet another crazy idea proved wrong (the earth is flat )

confirmation of cautious hyppothesis : an established law has one again been applied right ( the law of gravity)

theory cannot be conclusively falsified ( we cannot rule out that some part of the test situation is responsible for a flase prediction

e.g. if reasercher B replicates finding of resercher A

reasercher B made a mistake

original effect is not genuene effect ( reasercher A mistake )

resercher A results can be obtained under specific effect

good that we did not have falsificaiton in the past a some important theoris form now just needed time to be reformulated

falsification woud have rejected sme very good thoeis in thier infancy

= **a framework containing all the commonly accepted views about a subject, conventions about what direction research should take and how it should be performed**

an attempt to understand the structure of scientific progress (and revolutions)

more of "why " we do it this way rather than "how" it should be done

pre paradigmic phase

normal science

crisis

scientific revolution

no shared vocabularies , thoeries, measurment or concepts

individual scientist did different things and do not work much together

not a very productive period

business as usual

scientists are not critical of their theoires, ideas , concepts and measurments

the scientific paradigm was taken for granted (good thing)

scinetist don't want to be critical of their paradigmn

otherwhise no work would get done

e.g. biologists who take for granted cells, DNA, genetics

anomaly : a problem that cannot be solved by the paradigm

they are alweys theere , they do not neccerly pose a problem for the paradigm

as long as the scientists are confident that they can solve it

problematic when they multiply and scientists cannot solve them

scientist become more and more critical → interested in radical ideas, methods and concepts

1. anomalies are solved
2. order is restored
3. business as usual
4. a new paradigm is born that promises to solve the anomalies

wehn one paradigm is abandoned, the other is accepted

e.g. Darwinian evolution in biology, Freudian revolution in psychology

paradigmns cannot be comapred to eachother :

1. observational
2. semantic
3. methodological

observational incommensurability : obervation is theory laden (cannot be used as a common ground to compare different theories)

semantic incommensurability: the language of one paradigm cannot be translated into another ( makes it very difficult to compare theories

methodological incommensurability : the methods to analye results are different between paradigms( rival paradigms do not agree on which problems are important to solve )

psychoanalyisis vs research domain criteria (RDoC)

psychoanalyisis → release repressed emotionas and expirinces by using techniques such as free asociation and dream analyisis

RDoC → trnaform the current DSM framework into biological system to catheorise mental ilness as brain disfunction

patient with trmabling hands

psychoanalist : result of emotional repression

RDoC: side effect of the medication

same observation but different ideas about cause

each have different theoretical frameworks but call this tremour

not a problem when the starting point is publicaly observable

when it is not observable we have a problem

how do we call the same thing in two different aspects ?

different methods to treat mental ilness

different standards of what succesful emans