Scientific Realism & Anti-realism - Assignment Example

1) What are scientific realism and anti-realism? Scientific realism is the idea that “the physical world exists independently of human thought or perception” (58). The aim of realism is to use the clues that the world provides to create an accurate picture of the world as a whole. The governing premise is that one can build a representation of the unknown using the known as a base. Anti-realism is only concerned with fact about what one observes (59). Scientists who practice anti-realism base their results solely on what one knows, not conjecture about what the information may reveal about the unknown. Therefore, anti-realism describes a part of the world, while realism attempts to define the whole. 2) Explain the “no miracles argument.” The “no miracles argument” is an argument for realism that states that there are unobservable “entities” in the world that can be used to influence the observable world. Just because one cannot observe everything does not mean that it does not exist. What happens in the observable world proves the existence and can allow one to predict the behavior of the unobservable. a) Understand what it means for a theory to be “empirically successful” A theory is “empirically successful” if it has be shown to make “excellent predictions about the behavior of objects in the observable world” (62). Inherently unobservable phenomena, such as the changes an electron undergoes in an atom when moving from a high to lower energy-state in lasers, which scientists then apply to technology that is functional based on the repeatable results of the experiments define theories that are empirically successful. b) Explain the responses and the responses to the responses, etc. (The back and forth between the two sides on this argument) Realists use the theory to confirm the existence of the unobservable world and to make predictions about its reliability, proposing that if a theory is empirically successful that it must be true based on the results of repeated observations. Anti-realists refer to a number of theories based on empirically successful experimentation that science has later proven false. The anti-realist position is that as science becomes more sophisticated and uncovers ways to observe more of the world, more of the unknown becomes known. 3) Explain the “no clear difference” argument The “no clear difference” argument proposes that there is no clear delineation between the observable and unobservable world. Another argument for realism, this argument indicates that if the line cannot be drawn so that it is easily understood, that more is observable than the anti-realists readily assume. a) Understand the difference (according to the anti-realist) between “observation” and “detection” “Observation” refers to entities that one can observe with the naked eye, while “detection” refers to entities that one presumes to know based on their ability to be detected using special equipment (67). b) Explain Bas Van Fraasen’s response to Maxwell Maxwell discusses the use of sophisticated equipment to observe particles that are not visible to the naked eye. He argues that use of this sort of equipment refutes anti-realism. Bas Van Frassen’s response is that this only points to certain “vagueness” about the delineation between the observable and unobservable. Bas Van Frassen does not believe that the vague nature of what is observable indicates that there is no basis for anti-realism. His argument is that there are degrees of what is observable and scientists should apply their knowledge accordingly (69-70). 4) Explain the “undertermination” argument “Underdetermination” is an argument for anti-realism. a) Understand what “underdetermination” means (of course!) “Underdetermination” analyzes the number of theories used to predict the behavior of an unobservable entity and their veracity. Since one can propose many theories, and many of them can be in conflict, anti-realists find the theories based on the unobservable suspect (72). b) Explain the back and forth between the two sides Realists argue that just because scientists can arrive at different conclusions, this does not negate the validity of the theories. One must subject the theories to additional tests and consider the plausibility of the results. The quality of the results is always in question and open for challenge, but this does not mean that the theories are always wrong (73). Anti-realists argue that if there is no one clear answer, that theories based on the unobservable are unreliable and one cannot use them. c) Explain why the undetermination argument is a version of the problem of induction. The undetermination argument is a version of the problem of induction because stating that one does not really know the answer implies that there is an answer that is unknown and waiting to be discovered. Kuhn and Scientific Revolutions 1) Explain logical positivism Logical positivism is the idea that science proves behavior of entities through application of precise rules, experimentation and results (78-79). a. Explain the difference between the “context of discovery” and the “context of justification” and how this relates to logical positivism. The context of discovery is the idea that one can subjectively hypothesize about something that one has observed and make a prediction about its repeatable behavior. The context of justification is the steps one takes to conclude the validity of one’s hypothesis. In logical positivism, the context of justification is what matters, as that is where experimentation reveals the facts. b. Explain the difference between “theories” and “observational facts,” how this relates to logical positivism, and Kuhn’s concept of the “theory-ladenness of data.” Theories, while based on empirically successful results, are subjective. They can be, and often are, refuted as science becomes more sophisticated. One grounds observational facts in rational and objective evidence that results from experimentation on known entities. Kuhn’s concept of the “theory-ladenness of data” is that one can never truly separate data from the assumptions one makes against it based on one’s knowledge and acceptance or rejection of the theories that have been posed about a particular entity(88). This concept calls into question the objectivity of any observed results and makes “truth” based on “fact” subjective. 2) Explain Kuhn’s theory of the structure of scientific revolutions Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolutions describes times scientists challenge and refute when the known and universally accepted theories about science and “known” rules and behaviors. Kuhn describes these universal programs as paradigms and scientific revolutions as paradigm shifts. a. Explain the difference between ‘normal science’ and ‘revolutionary science’. Normal science accepts the universal paradigm as fact and works within its constructs. Revolutionary science challenges, tests, and often reshapes the universally accepted paradigm to create a new paradigm that scientists then adopt as “normal science” (81-82) b. Explain the difference between the ‘linear’ and ‘non-cumulative’ pictures of scientific history The non-cumulative picture of scientific history assumes that once science advances, the history that contributed to the advancement is negligible because of the advancement. In short, the non-cumulative picture disregards the history. The linear picture uses the history of science to build an explanation of how science has evolved and how the history has contributed to knowledge today. c. Explain Kuhn’s claim that ‘truth is relative to a paradigm’ Kuhn claims that truth is relative to a paradigm because the paradigm at any given time is subject to the universally accepted rules that comprise the paradigm. Because one can challenge, test, and change these rules, the “truth” is subjective. d. Explain Kuhn’s ‘incommensurability’ thesis, and i. Why incommensurability leads Kuhn to claim that truth is paradigm-relative Because one defines scientific concepts by the theories that comprise the current paradigm, Kuhn claims that truth is paradigm-relative. ii. What ‘holism’ means and how it leads Kuhn to the incommensurability thesis Holism refers to the idea that one must accept the theories within the paradigm in their entirety. Incommensurability implies this relation is necessary. iii. The objection that Kuhn’s incommensurability thesis is in contradiction with his claim that paradigms are incompatible, and the way Kuhn modifies his incommensurability thesis to fix that problem. Kuhn modifies his incommensurability theory to indicate that one may partially translate paradigms to acknowledge potential overlaps between them. e. Explain Kuhn’s thesis of the ‘theory-ladenness of data’ Kuhn’s concept of the “theory-ladenness of data” is that one can never truly separate data from the assumptions one makes against it based on one’s knowledge and acceptance or rejection of the theories that have been posed about a particular entity(88). i. Explain the two arguments for the theory-ladenness thesis One argument for theory-ladenness agrees that there is no way to ensure that data is theory neutral. Mankind uses knowledge to shape individual perceptions and one cannot escape this application of knowledge and experience. The other argument is that just because there is an element of theory does not imply that the analysis of the data is necessary suspect. If the analysis is based on inarguable facts, the results can be accepted regardless of the theory to which one subscribes (89). ii. Does the theory-ladenness of data mean we have to abandon the concept of objective truth? Why/why not? The theory-ladenness of data does not mean that we have to abandon the concept of objective truth as long as we accept that it is relative to a level of confidence that may be refuted as science advances and we learn more as a scientific community. f. Does Kuhn’s theory threaten the rationality of science? Why/why not? i. What does Kuhn mean by saying there is no “algorithm” for theory choice in science? When Kuhn states that there is no algorithm for theory choice in science, he means that there is no universally accepted way to measure the veracity of a theory. Unlike math, where calculations can be applied to determine the best outcome with any given set of parameters, there is no formula that can be applied to theories to identify the “best” one to follow. ii. What is cultural relativism? Is it true? Why/why not? Cultural relativism is the idea that one’s culture and environment shape one’s beliefs and approaches to the world, and in particular, science. There is basis for cultural relativism because people shape their thoughts and opinions around what the world has exposed them to throughout their lives. Unless everyone has exactly the same experiences, cultural relativism will always play a role in the results. Read More