Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Verification and Meaning: A statement that cannot be verified by any empirical observation or logical reasoning, even in principle, is neither true nor false. It is completely meaningless. Example: Nothing nothings is neither true nor false.
(It is not a direct statement about any state of affairs. It is an indirect statement about the emotional state of the speaker.)
Inductive logic
All copper we have tested conducts electricity. X is a piece of copper yet to be tested. Therefore X will conduct electricity.
Example: Confirming Freudian psychoanalysis How do we know that repressed memories of infantile sexual desires are the causes of neurosis? These desires are revealed in our dreams, Freudian slips, free associations, and other symptoms. They are the latent content expressed symbolically. How do we determine the true meaning of these symbols?
Pseudo-science: A theory with the empirical trappings of real science, including a system of theoretical concepts and a wealth of corroborating evidence.
But a pseudo-science has built-in defense mechanisms against possible refutation. The Freudian theory provides an interpretation for every conceiveable symptom of the patient. Its predictions therefore can never be refuted.
Einsteins General Relativity: If it had failed its famous test of 1919, no one would have taken it seriously. But it passed the test, and Newtons theory of gravitation was refuted.
Albert Einstein (1879-1955) On the electrodynamics of moving bodies (1905) The foundation of the general theory of relativity (1916)
Light from a star passing near the Sun should be deflected. The evidence is the displacement of the stars apparent position.
Actual observation
How do scientists decide whether, or when, their theory is refuted? How do we explain why scientists persist in working on theories in the face of counterexamples?
Lakatos: Scientific theories are not really falsifiable. They are research programmes that consist of:
a hard core of fundamental principles that contain what the theory really says about the world, and a protective belt of auxiliary hypotheses that explain how the fundamental principles apply to particular cases, and how to deal with apparent discrepancies. These include ceteris paribus (other things being equal) clauses that accommodate problematic cases.
Newtonian Gravitation Theory: Predicts that every acceleration of every body can be traced to an interaction with some other body, according to their masses and the distance between them.
Gm1m2 F 2 r
What to do when we observe an acceleration that has no visible source? Is the theory refuted?
No : The theory demands that the missing mass be found.
1687-1727: Newton breaks his head against the problem of the motion of the moon, which he cannot predict precisely from his law of gravitation
1748: Clairaut solves the problem of the motion of the moon using Newtons theory and better mathematical techniques. 1821: A slight discrepancy is noted between the actual motion of Uranus and the motion predicted by Newtons law of gravitation. Astronomers puzzle over it for a while. 1843: John Crouch Adams deduces, from Newtons law and Uranus orbit, the approximate location of a new planet. 1846: The new planet is discovered by Adams and Leverrier.
The theory of gravity, which, by so many applications, has become a means of discovery, as certain as by observation itself, has made known to [the mathematician] several new inequalities...enabled him to predict the return of the comet of 1759....He has been enabled by this means to deduce from observation, as from a rich mine, a great number of important and delicate elements, which, without the aid of analysis, would have been forever hidden from view....
Laplace, Mcanique cleste
Mercurys perihelion is found to precess at a rate that does not agree with Newtons theory. The difference is 43 per century.
1855-1916: various hypotheses are advanced to explain this discrepancy between theory and observation. For example: --is there another planet (Vulcan) near to Mercurys orbit?
r2 ,
but as
r2.000000097 ?
--is there a cloud of matter near the sun that affects Mercurys orbit? 1916: Einstein shows that general relativity predicts precisely the missing 43.
Lakatos: The fundamental difference is between progressive and degenerating research programmes.
Progressive research programmes lead to novel predictions, new problems, and new solutions. Degenerating programmes spend their time trying to adjust after the fact to new information, and to protect themselves from refutation by constant adjustment.
The pseudo-sciences are really degenerating programmes whose practitioners are mainly devoted to defending the programme against contrary evidence. The progressive programmes view contrary evidence as a challenge that will broaden and deepen the theory.
Thomas Kuhn on Scientific Revolutions (cf. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962.)
Paradigm: Kuhns idea that a scientific theory is not just a set of theoretical principles. It is an entire world-view, consisting of: --Metaphysical views about the nature of the world and the things in it; --methodological rules about correct scientific practice; --a conception of what constitutes a legitimate scientific question and what doesnt --a conception of what constitutes a scientific fact; --paradigm exemplars of the right kind of problem to solve and the right way to solve it.
A paradigm, therefore, determines not only a set of beliefs about the world. It also defines what counts as good science, and even determines what counts as a scientific fact.
It is a conceptual framework that determines how the world looks to those who have accepted it.
It defines not only the scientific outlook for practitioners of a particular science, but also the scientific form of life.
Revolutionary science: a time of decreasing confidence in the existing paradigm (because of the accumulation of unsolved puzzles), and conflict with alternative paradigms.
This is like a political crisis, with uncertainty, and conflict among many views, until a new order becomes established and a single paradigm takes a position of authority.
The replacement of one paradigm by another cant be viewed as progressive on any objective grounds. Since adherents of different paradigms define the questions differently, and accept different standards for a good answer, the conflict between them has no neutral resolution. A scientific revolution has to be regarded as a social and psychological phenomenon rather than as a purely intellectual one. For an individual scientist, the change in point of view is more like a religious conversion than a rational process of comparing theories against the facts.
QuickTime and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture.
The arguments made in favor of one theory cannot be fully understood by, or persuasive for , adherents of the other.
New paradigms introduce new theoretical terms, or change the meanings of old ones, in ways that are incomprehensible to anyone who doesnt already accept the new theory.
A new paradigm doesnt explain more than its predecessor. Even if it can explain things that the old theory couldnt, it will typically fail to explain many things that the old theory could explain. (This has been called Kuhn loss.
The history of science is not cumulative: new theories cant incorporate the successes of older ones, because they have a completely different view of what counts as success. The new theory redefines the old theory in its own terms.
Fruitfulness: Power to generate new principles, problems, solutions, predictions, etc. Question: Does agreement on these values imply agreement on their application, their relative importance, etc?