DOCSLIB.ORG

Has Laudan Killed the Demarcation Problem?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Has Laudan Killed the Demarcation Problem? Has Laudan Killed the Demarcation Problem? Kirsten Walsh Bachelor of Arts (Hons) (Melb) Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Arts (with Advanced Seminars component) History and Philosophy of Science The University of Melbourne Australia October 2009 Produced on archival quality paper. Abstract The „Demarcation Problem‟ is to mark the boundary between things that are scientific and things that are not. Philosophers have worked on this problem for a long time, and yet there is still no consensus solution. Should we continue to hope, or must we draw a more sceptical conclusion? In his paper, „The Demise of the Demarcation Problem‟, Larry Laudan (1983) does the latter. In this thesis, I address the three arguments he gives for this conclusion. The Pessimistic Induction: From the failure of many specific past attempts at demarcation, Laudan infers that all future attempts at demarcation will fail. For his argument to be fully convincing, Laudan needs to show that each attempt has been a complete failure, and that these failures have never led to progress in the theory of demarcation. I argue that many past attempts at demarcation have only resulted in partial failure, and many of these failures have led to some cumulative progress. So I think we can draw a more optimistic conclusion: future attempts at demarcation may be even more successful than past attempts. The Pseudo-Problem: Laudan argues that the demarcation problem presupposes an „epistemic invariant‟: something common to all and only the sciences, which makes them epistemically special. But, says Laudan, this presumption is false – so, by definition, the issue is merely a pseudo-problem. I find Laudan‟s argument unconvincing. I present reasons for thinking that the demarcation problem does not, in fact, presuppose an extremely simple epistemic invariant. Furthermore, there may still be a satisfactory, moderately complex epistemic invariant to be found. So I do not think any false assumption is presupposed. The New Problem: Laudan argues that we should replace the original demarcation problem with a new demarcation problem. I take this to be the problem of demarcating between well-confirmed and ill-confirmed theories. I argue that scientific status is relevant to the confirmation of theories, so the two problems are closely related. I also argue that science has other purposes; so scientific status indicates other virtues besides well- confirmedness. Thus we do want to know which theories and activities are scientific, because this will help us to decide which theories and activities to pursue. So this new demarcation problem is not a suitable replacement for the original problem. My central question is „Has Laudan killed the demarcation problem?‟, and my answer is „No!‟. 1 Declaration This is to certify that (i) The thesis comprises only my original work except where indicated in the Preface; (ii) Due acknowledgement has been made in the text to all other material used; (iii) The thesis is 20,000-22,000 words in length, inclusive of footnotes but exclusive of tables, maps, appendices and bibliography. Kirsten Walsh 2 Acknowledgements This thesis is the culmination of my academic journey thus far. Starting out as a vague question, „Is the demarcation problem worth solving?‟, it evolved into its present form. I would like to thank a number of people who have contributed to the final result in many different ways: First and foremost, I sincerely thank my long-suffering supervisor Howard Sankey, who has ploughed through various drafts, making critical suggestions and posing challenging questions. He has motivated and encouraged me every step of the way – never reproaching me when the necessity of doing paid work got in the way of progress. For this, I am extremely grateful. Special thanks go to Neil Thomason for inspiring me in the early stages, encouraging me to present my work at conferences, and for reading an entire draft of my thesis during a flight to the US! I also thank Jason Grossman for his kind comments and helpful criticisms of Chapter One. This thesis evolved into its present form during a summer I spent at the University of Auckland under the supervision of Robert Nola who went above and beyond the call of duty. I thank him not only for his helpful discussions and feedback, but also for showing me around Auckland and the surrounds. I also thank Jan Crosthwaite, Rosalind Hursthouse, and the University of Auckland for providing me with the Summer Research Scholarship that made this work possible. For providing numerous distractions, as well as their unfailing support, I thank the History and Philosophy of Science (HPS) and Philosophy postgrads with whom I have shared office space, morning tea, and jugs of beer. In particular I‟d like to thank: Conrad Asmus for teaching me formal logic and reading a draft of my thesis; Alex Murphy for insisting that I use correct grammar and punctuation; Tama Coutts for being interested in everything philosophical; David Condylis for insisting that I should never trust a philosopher named „Larry‟; Ned Taylor for telling me what physicists do; Suzy Killmister for securing office space; and Kristian Camilleri and Steph Lavau for proving that theses can be finished. Special mention goes to the participants of „Help! My Progress has Stalled!‟ and „Operation Endless Victory‟: Aaron Retz, Bryan Cooke, Chris Soeterboek, Paul Carter, Sergio Mariscal, Steph Lavau, Steven Kambouris, and Vicki Macknight – I hope we are all victorious in the end! 3 A very special thank you to Erik Nyberg, my partner, colleague and friend. He always supported and encouraged me, stayed interested in the details of my interminable project, and made many helpful suggestions – especially by playing the devil‟s advocate during the editing of my final draft. Finally, I thank my parents, Adrian and Meredith Walsh, who have offered their unconditional support and gentle counsel at every turn of the road. Their foresight and values paved the way for my privileged education. I dedicate this thesis to Larry Laudan, for all the time we‟ve spent together.1 1 I haven‟t met Professor Laudan yet, but I hope to meet him one day! 4 Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................................... 1 Declaration .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. 3 Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................ 5 Table of Figures .................................................................................................................................. 8 0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 9 0.1 What is Demarcation? .......................................................................................................... 9 0.2 Laudan’s Three Sceptical Arguments ................................................................................. 11 1 The Pessimistic Induction .......................................................................................................... 13 1.1 Laudan’s Pessimistic Induction .......................................................................................... 13 1.2 Inductive Inference ............................................................................................................. 16 1.3 The Resemblance Assumption should be Rejected .............................................................. 19 1.4 Progress in the Philosophy of Method ................................................................................ 20 1.5 Reply: Scientific Method Changes ...................................................................................... 23 1.6 Reply: The New Tradition is not Epistemic ........................................................................ 27 1.7 Rejoinder: Testability is Epistemic ..................................................................................... 28 1.8 Rejoinder: The New Tradition is Progressive .................................................................... 29 1.9 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 32 2 The Pseudo-Problem .................................................................................................................. 34 2.1 Laudan’s Requirements and Pseudo-Problem.................................................................... 34 2.2 Requirement One: Accuracy ............................................................................................... 36 2.2.1 Objection: Demarcations can be legislative .............................................................. 36 2.2.2 Sub-conclusion: Reasonable accuracy is sufficient ................................................... 37 2.3 Requirement Two: Precision .............................................................................................. 37 2.3.1 Objection: Precise enough for the specific purpose .................................................. 38 2.3.2 Objection: Ordinary vagueness could be replicated
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Epistemology of Evidence in Cognitive Neuroscience1
    To appear in In R. Skipper Jr., C. Allen, R. A. Ankeny, C. F. Craver, L. Darden, G. Mikkelson, and R. Richardson (eds.), Philosophy and the Life Sciences: A Reader. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. The Epistemology of Evidence in Cognitive Neuroscience1 William Bechtel Department of Philosophy and Science Studies University of California, San Diego 1. The Epistemology of Evidence It is no secret that scientists argue. They argue about theories. But even more, they argue about the evidence for theories. Is the evidence itself trustworthy? This is a bit surprising from the perspective of traditional empiricist accounts of scientific methodology according to which the evidence for scientific theories stems from observation, especially observation with the naked eye. These accounts portray the testing of scientific theories as a matter of comparing the predictions of the theory with the data generated by these observations, which are taken to provide an objective link to reality. One lesson philosophers of science have learned in the last 40 years is that even observation with the naked eye is not as epistemically straightforward as was once assumed. What one is able to see depends upon one’s training: a novice looking through a microscope may fail to recognize the neuron and its processes (Hanson, 1958; Kuhn, 1962/1970).2 But a second lesson is only beginning to be appreciated: evidence in science is often not procured through simple observations with the naked eye, but observations mediated by complex instruments and sophisticated research techniques. What is most important, epistemically, about these techniques is that they often radically alter the phenomena under investigation.
    [Show full text]
  • Truth, Rationality, and the Growth of Scientific Knowledge
    ....... CONJECTURES sense similar to that in which processes or things may be said to be parts of the world; that the world consists of facts in a sense in which it may be said to consist of (four dimensional) processes or of (three dimensional) things. They believe that, just as certain nouns are names of things, sentences are names of facts. And they sometimes even believe that sentences are some- thing like pictures of facts, or that they are projections of facts.7 But all this is mistaken. The fact that there is no elephant in this room is not one of the processes or parts ofthe world; nor is the fact that a hailstorm in Newfound- 10 land occurred exactIy I I I years after a tree collapsed in the New Zealand bush. Facts are something like a common product oflanguage and reality; they are reality pinned down by descriptive statements. They are like abstracts from TRUTH, RATIONALITY, AND THE a book, made in a language which is different from that of the original, and determined not only by the original book but nearly as much by the principles GROWTH OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE of selection and by other methods of abstracting, and by the means of which the new language disposes. New linguistic means not only help us to describe 1. THE GROWTH OF KNOWLEDGE: THEORIES AND PROBLEMS new kinds of facts; in a way, they even create new kinds of facts. In a certain sense, these facts obviously existed before the new means were created which I were indispensable for their description; I say, 'obviously' because a calcula- tion, for example, ofthe movements of the planet Mercury of 100 years ago, MY aim in this lecture is to stress the significance of one particular aspect of carried out today with the help of the calculus of the theory of relativity, may science-its need to grow, or, if you like, its need to progress.
    [Show full text]
  • ATINER's Conference Paper Series PHI2012-0090 Demarcation
    ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: PHI2012-0090 Athens Institute for Education and Research ATINER ATINER's Conference Paper Series PHI2012-0090 Demarcation, Definition, Art Thomas Adajian Assistant Professor of Philosophy James Madison University USA 1 ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: PHI2012-0090 Athens Institute for Education and Research 8 Valaoritou Street, Kolonaki, 10671 Athens, Greece Tel: + 30 210 3634210 Fax: + 30 210 3634209 Email: [email protected] URL: www.atiner.gr URL Conference Papers Series: www.atiner.gr/papers.htm Printed in Athens, Greece by the Athens Institute for Education and Research. All rights reserved. Reproduction is allowed for non-commercial purposes if the source is fully acknowledged. ISSN 2241-2891 4/09/2012 2 ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: PHI2012-0090 An Introduction to ATINER's Conference Paper Series ATINER started to publish this conference papers series in 2012. It includes only the papers submitted for publication after they were presented at one of the conferences organized by our Institute every year. The papers published in the series have not been refereed and are published as they were submitted by the author. The series serves two purposes. First, we want to disseminate the information as fast as possible. Second, by doing so, the authors can receive comments useful to revise their papers before they are considered for publication in one of ATINER's books, following our standard procedures of a blind review. Dr. Gregory T. Papanikos President Athens Institute for Education and Research 3 ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: PHI2012-0090 This paper should be cited as follows: Adajian, T.
    [Show full text]
  • Urban Myths Mythical Cryptids
    Ziptales Advanced Library Worksheet 2 Urban Myths Mythical Cryptids ‘What is a myth? It is a story that pretends to be real, but is in fact unbelievable. Like many urban myths it has been passed around (usually by word of mouth), acquiring variations and embellishments as it goes. It is a close cousin of the tall tale. There are mythical stories about almost any aspect of life’. What do we get when urban myths meet the animal kingdom? We find a branch of pseudoscience called cryptozoology. Cryptozoology refers to the study of and search for creatures whose existence has not been proven. These creatures (or crytpids as they are known) appear in myths and legends or alleged sightings. Some examples include: sea serpents, phantom cats, unicorns, bunyips, giant anacondas, yowies and thunderbirds. Some have even been given actual names you may have heard of – do Yeti, Owlman, Mothman, Cyclops, Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster sound familiar? Task 1: Choose one of the cryptids from the list above (or perhaps one that you may already know of) and write an informative text identifying the following aspects of this mythical creature: ◊ Description ◊ Features ◊ Location ◊ First Sighting ◊ Subsequent Sightings ◊ Interesting Facts (e.g. how is it used in popular culture? Has it been featured in written or visual texts?) Task 2: Cryptozoologists claim there have been cases where species now accepted by the scientific community were initially considered urban myths. Can you locate any examples of creatures whose existence has now been proven but formerly thought to be cryptids? Extension Activities: • Cryptozoology is called a ‘pseudoscience’ because it relies solely on anecdotes and reported sightings rather than actual evidence.
    [Show full text]
  • The Demarcation Problem
    Part I The Demarcation Problem 25 Chapter 1 Popper’s Falsifiability Criterion 1.1 Popper’s Falsifiability Popper’s Problem : To distinguish between science and pseudo-science (astronomy vs astrology) - Important distinction: truth is not the issue – some theories are sci- entific and false, and some may be unscientific but true. - Traditional but unsatisfactory answers: empirical method - Popper’s targets: Marx, Freud, Adler Popper’s thesis : Falsifiability – the theory contains claims which could be proved to be false. Characteristics of Pseudo-Science : unfalsifiable - Any phenomenon can be interpreted in terms of the pseudo-scientific theory “Whatever happened always confirmed it” (5) - Example: man drowning vs saving a child Characteristics of Science : falsifiability - A scientific theory is always takes risks concerning the empirical ob- servations. It contains the possibility of being falsified. There is con- firmation only when there is failure to refute. 27 28 CHAPTER 1. POPPER’S FALSIFIABILITY CRITERION “The theory is incompatible with certain possible results of observation” (6) - Example: Einstein 1919 1.2 Kuhn’s criticism of Popper Kuhn’s Criticism of Popper : Popper’s falsifiability criterion fails to char- acterize science as it is actually practiced. His criticism at best applies to revolutionary periods of the history of science. Another criterion must be given for normal science. Kuhn’s argument : - Kuhn’s distinction between normal science and revolutionary science - A lesson from the history of science: most science is normal science. Accordingly, philosophy of science should focus on normal science. And any satisfactory demarcation criterion must apply to normal science. - Popper’s falsifiability criterion at best only applies to revolutionary science, not to normal science.
    [Show full text]
  • Study Questions Philosophy of Science Spring 2011 Exam 1
    Study Questions Philosophy of Science Spring 2011 Exam 1 1. Explain the affinities and contrasts between science and philosophy and between science and metaphysics. 2. What is the principle of verification? How was the logical positivist‟s view of verification influenced by Hume‟s fork? Explain. 3. Explain Hume‟s distinction between impressions and ideas. What is the relevance of this distinction for the empiricist‟s view of how knowledge is acquired? 4. Why was Hume skeptical about “metaphysical knowledge”? Does the logical positivist, such as A. J. Ayer, agree or disagree? Why or why not? 5. Explain Ayer‟s distinction between weak and strong verification. Is this distinction tenable? 6. How did Rudolf Carnap attempt to separate science from metaphysics? Explain the role of what Carnap called „C-Rules‟ for this attempt. Was he successful? 7. Explain one criticism of the logical positivist‟s principle of verification? Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not? 8. Explain the affinities and contrasts between A. J. Ayer‟s logical positivism and Karl Popper‟s criterion of falsifiability. Why does Popper think that scientific progress depends on falsifiability rather than verifiability? What are Popper‟s arguments against verifiability? Do you think Popper is correct? 9. Kuhn argued that Popper neglected what Kuhn calls “normal science.” Does Popper have a reply to Kuhn in his distinction between science and ideology? Explain. 10. Is Popper‟s criterion of falsifiability a solution to the problem of demarcation? Why or why not? Why would Gierre or Kuhn disagree? Explain 11. Kuhn, in his “Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research?” disagrees with Popper‟s criterion of falsifiability as defining the essence of science.
    [Show full text]
  • A Feminist Epistemological Framework: Preventing Knowledge Distortions in Scientific Inquiry
    Claremont Colleges Scholarship @ Claremont Scripps Senior Theses Scripps Student Scholarship 2019 A Feminist Epistemological Framework: Preventing Knowledge Distortions in Scientific Inquiry Karina Bucciarelli Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.claremont.edu/scripps_theses Part of the Epistemology Commons, Feminist Philosophy Commons, and the Philosophy of Science Commons Recommended Citation Bucciarelli, Karina, "A Feminist Epistemological Framework: Preventing Knowledge Distortions in Scientific Inquiry" (2019). Scripps Senior Theses. 1365. https://scholarship.claremont.edu/scripps_theses/1365 This Open Access Senior Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Scripps Student Scholarship at Scholarship @ Claremont. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scripps Senior Theses by an authorized administrator of Scholarship @ Claremont. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A FEMINIST EPISTEMOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK: PREVENTING KNOWLEDGE DISTORTIONS IN SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY by KARINA MARTINS BUCCIARELLI SUBMITTED TO SCRIPPS COLLEGE IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF ARTS PROFESSOR SUSAN CASTAGNETTO PROFESSOR RIMA BASU APRIL 26, 2019 Bucciarelli 2 Acknowledgements First off, I would like to thank my wonderful family for supporting me every step of the way. Mamãe e Papai, obrigada pelo amor e carinho, mil telefonemas, conversas e risadas. Obrigada por não só proporcionar essa educação incrível, mas também me dar um exemplo de como viver. Rafa, thanks for the jokes, the editing help and the spontaneous phone calls. Bela, thank you for the endless time you give to me, for your patience and for your support (even through WhatsApp audios). To my dear friends, thank you for the late study nights, the wild dance parties, the laughs and the endless support.
    [Show full text]
  • Using the Scientific Method
    Using the Scientific Method 2002 and 2014 GED Content Area: Science Focus: Scientific Method (2002) and Scientific Hypothesis and Investigation(2014) Activity Type: Graphic Organizer and GED Practice Objectives Students will be able to: Appreciate the purpose of the Scientific Method Understand key terms related to the Scientific Method: observation, hypothesis, test, experiment, result, conclusion Relate the Scientific Method to an experiment Answer GED questions based on the Scientific Method Directions 1. Print the handout “Using the Scientific Method” (next page). Pass out the handout to the class. 2. Explain that the scientific method is the way scientists learn about the world around us. This involves several steps, often in the form of experiments. Discuss the 5 steps in the chart on the handout and define the highlighted words. 3. Have a student or students read the first passage out loud. Ask the class to fill in the chart. They can fill in the chart individually or in pairs (discussing these concepts can help students develop their thinking skills). 4. Discuss the students’ answers. Samples: 1. Observation: Where there was Penicillium mold, there were also dead bacteria. 2. Hypothesis: The mold must produce a chemical that kills the bacteria. 3. Test: Grow more of the mold separately and then return it to the bacteria. 4. Result: When the material is returned to the mold, the bacteria died. 5. Conclusion: Penicillium kills bacteria. 5. Have students read the passage at the bottom of the page and answer the GED practice question. Choice (4) is correct because the doctor saw that when the chickens ate whole‐grain rice with thiamine, they did not have the disease.
    [Show full text]
  • Objectivity in the Feminist Philosophy of Science
    OBJECTIVITY IN THE FEMINIST PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requisites for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Karen Cordrick Haely, M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 2003 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Louise M. Antony, Adviser Professor Donald C. Hubin _______________________ Professor George Pappas Adviser Philosophy Graduate Program ABSTRACT According to a familiar though naïve conception, science is a rigorously neutral enterprise, free from social and cultural influence, but more sophisticated philosophical views about science have revealed that cultural and personal interests and values are ubiquitous in scientific practice, and thus ought not be ignored when attempting to understand, describe and prescribe proper behavior for the practice of science. Indeed, many theorists have argued that cultural and personal interests and values must be present in science (and knowledge gathering in general) in order to make sense of the world. The concept of objectivity has been utilized in the philosophy of science (as well as in epistemology) as a way to discuss and explore the various types of social and cultural influence that operate in science. The concept has also served as the focus of debates about just how much neutrality we can or should expect in science. This thesis examines feminist ideas regarding how to revise and enrich the concept of objectivity, and how these suggestions help achieve both feminist and scientific goals. Feminists offer us warnings about “idealized” concepts of objectivity, and suggest that power can play a crucial role in determining which research programs get labeled “objective”.
    [Show full text]
  • Sacred Rhetorical Invention in the String Theory Movement
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Communication Studies Theses, Dissertations, and Student Research Communication Studies, Department of Spring 4-12-2011 Secular Salvation: Sacred Rhetorical Invention in the String Theory Movement Brent Yergensen University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/commstuddiss Part of the Speech and Rhetorical Studies Commons Yergensen, Brent, "Secular Salvation: Sacred Rhetorical Invention in the String Theory Movement" (2011). Communication Studies Theses, Dissertations, and Student Research. 6. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/commstuddiss/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Communication Studies, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Communication Studies Theses, Dissertations, and Student Research by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. SECULAR SALVATION: SACRED RHETORICAL INVENTION IN THE STRING THEORY MOVEMENT by Brent Yergensen A DISSERTATION Presented to the Faculty of The Graduate College at the University of Nebraska In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Major: Communication Studies Under the Supervision of Dr. Ronald Lee Lincoln, Nebraska April, 2011 ii SECULAR SALVATION: SACRED RHETORICAL INVENTION IN THE STRING THEORY MOVEMENT Brent Yergensen, Ph.D. University of Nebraska, 2011 Advisor: Ronald Lee String theory is argued by its proponents to be the Theory of Everything. It achieves this status in physics because it provides unification for contradictory laws of physics, namely quantum mechanics and general relativity. While based on advanced theoretical mathematics, its public discourse is growing in prevalence and its rhetorical power is leading to a scientific revolution, even among the public.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes for Our Seminar: Objectivity and Subjectivity
    Notes for our seminar: Objectivity and Subjectivity B.M. December 14, 2019 Contents I A preview and overview of the topics we may cover 2 1 The nature of our seminar-course 3 II Readings and Notes for the sessions of Sept 11, Oct 2, Oct 30, and part of Dec 4 13 2 Readings for the September 11 session 13 2.1 Excerpt from [9] . 14 3 Some notes for Sep 11: Subjectivity, Universal Subjectivity, Objectivity 15 3.1 Objective . 16 4 Readings for October 2: 25 5 Notes for Oct 21 session: Objectivity and Subjectivity in Mathematics 36 5.1 What is the number `A thousand and one'?....................... 37 5.2 Plato ............................................ 38 5.3 `Tower Pound' definition ................................ 39 1 5.4 J.S. Mill .......................................... 39 5.5 Georg Cantor: ...................................... 40 5.6 Gottlob Frege (∼ 1900) ................................ 41 5.7 Foundations::: or Constitutions ............................. 43 5.8 David Hilbert ....................................... 43 5.9 L.E.J. Brouwer ...................................... 46 5.10 The simple phrase \and so on::: "............................ 48 6 Readings for October 30, 2019: (Shades of Objectivity and Subjectivity in Epistemology, Probability, and Physics) 50 7 Notes for October 30, 2019:(Shades of Objectivity and Subjectivity in Epistemology, Probability, and Physics) 51 8 Subjectivity and Objectivity in Statistics: `Educating your beliefs' versus `Test- ing your Hypotheses' 55 8.1 Predesignation versus the self-corrective nature of inductive reasoning . 57 8.2 Priors as `Meta-probabilities' . 59 8.3 Back to our three steps . 61 8.4 A numerical example and a question . 62 9 Issues of Subjectivity and Objectivity in Physics 63 10 Consequentialism of Meaning|notes for part of session of December 4 65 11 Dealing with nonexistent objects 69 2 Part I A preview and overview of the topics we may cover 1 The nature of our seminar-course Phil273O (Objectivity and Subjectivity) will be the fourth seminar- course I've taught with Amartya Sen and Eric Maskin.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis - Identify Assumptions, Reasons and Claims, and Examine How They Interact in the Formation of Arguments
    Analysis - identify assumptions, reasons and claims, and examine how they interact in the formation of arguments. Individuals use analytics to gather information from charts, graphs, diagrams, spoken language and documents. People with strong analytical skills attend to patterns and to details. They identify the elements of a situation and determine how those parts interact. Strong interpretations skills can support high quality analysis by providing insights into the significance of what a person is saying or what something means. Inference - draw conclusions from reasons and evidence. Inference is used when someone offers thoughtful suggestions and hypothesis. Inference skills indicate the necessary or the very probable consequences of a given set of facts and conditions. Conclusions, hypotheses, recommendations or decisions that are based on faulty analysis, misinformation, bad data or biased evaluations can turn out to be mistaken, even if they have reached using excellent inference skills. Evaluative - assess the credibility of sources of information and the claims they make, and determine the strength and weakness or arguments. Applying evaluation skills can judge the quality of analysis, interpretations, explanations, inferences, options, opinions, beliefs, ideas, proposals, and decisions. Strong explanation skills can support high quality evaluation by providing evidence, reasons, methods, criteria, or assumptions behind the claims made and the conclusions reached. Deduction - decision making in precisely defined contexts where rules, operating conditions, core beliefs, values, policies, principles, procedures and terminology completely determine the outcome. Deductive reasoning moves with exacting precision from the assumed truth of a set of beliefs to a conclusion which cannot be false if those beliefs are untrue. Deductive validity is rigorously logical and clear-cut.
    [Show full text]