DOCSLIB.ORG

A Pragmatic Approach to the Demarcation Problem David B. Resnik*

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Pragmatic Approach to the Demarcation Problem David B. Resnik* Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci., Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 249–267, 2000 Pergamon 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain www.elsevier.com/locate/shpsa 0039-3681/00 $ - see front matter A Pragmatic Approach to the Demarcation Problem David B. Resnik* The question of how to distinguish between science and non-science, the so-called ‘demarcation problem’, is one of the most high-profile, perennial, and intractable issues in the philosophy of science. It is not merely a philosophical issue, however, since it has a significant bearing on practical policy questions and practical decisions. This essay develops a pragmatic approach to the demarcation problem: it argues that while there are some core principles (or criteria) that we can use in distinguishing between science and non-science, particular judgments and decisions about some- thing’s scientific status depend, in part, on practical goals and concerns. 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction The question of how to distinguish between science and non-science, the so- called ‘demarcation problem’, is one of the most high profile, perennial, and intrac- table issues in the philosophy of science. Writing in the spirit of logical positivism, Karl Popper (1963) offered the most famous solution to the problem when he argued that scientific theories and hypotheses must be testable. Subsequent writers, such as Kuhn (1962, 1970), Ziman (1968), Lakatos (1977), Feyerabend (1975), Thagard (1978, 1988), Kitcher (1983, 1993), Dupre´ (1993), Ruse (1982) and Lau- dan (1982) have criticized Popper’s definition of ‘science’ and have offered their own definitions. While there is no shortage of approaches to the demarcation prob- lem, it is not at all clear that philosophers of science have ‘solved’ it. Indeed, some writers have concluded that it is impossible to draw a clear and definite line between science and non-science; the best we can do is make a list of criteria that apply to most of those enterprises that we call scientific (Dupre´, 1993; Kitcher, 1993). The demarcation problem is not merely a philosophical issue, however, since it has a significant bearing on practical policy questions, such as public education, the safety of foods and drugs, the use of scientific testimony in the courtroom, and * Department of Medical Humanities, East Carolina University, School of Medicine, Greenville, NC 27858-4354, U.S.A. (e-mail: [email protected]). Received 1 March 1999; in revised form 17 September 1999. PII: S0039-3681(00)00004-2 249 250 Studies in History and Philosophy of Science the funding of research. Real people face this problem every time they decide whether creation science should be taught in public schools, whether recovered- memory testimony should be allowed in the courtroom, whether a health insurance company should pay for a visit to the chiropractor, whether the National Institutes of Health should fund research on acupuncture, or whether a new bridge design will hold its intended load. For better or worse, policy makers, politicians, attorneys, judges, physicians, engineers, educators, and lay people must distinguish between genuine science and non-science when making practical decisions. The world cannot wait for philosophers of science to solve the demarcation problem. Thus, there are actually two demarcation problems, the philosophical problem and the practical one. Recognizing that there are two problems raises some difficult questions about their relationship (if any): should philosophical solutions be shaped by practical concerns? Should the difference between science and non-science depend on who asks the question? Why do people care about separating science from non-science? This essay will address these issues by developing a pragmatic approach to the demarcation problem. It will argue that while there are some core principles (or criteria) that we can use in distinguishing between science and non- science, particular judgments and decisions about something’s scientific status depend, in part, on practical goals and concerns. Giving a satisfactory answer to the question ‘what is science?’ depends, in part, on knowing who asks the question and why. My defense of this view will proceed as follows. Section 2 contains some pre- liminary remarks about defining the words ‘science’ and ‘scientific’. Section 3 gives an overview of failed attempts to solve the philosophical demarcation prob- lem, Section 4 diagnoses these problems, and Section 5 discusses how demarcation issues can arise in practical settings. Section 6 synthesizes the discussion in Section 2 through Section 5 by developing a pragmatic approach to demarcation, and Sec- tion 7 addresses two objections to this approach. 2. Defining the Terms ‘Science’ and ‘Non-science’ 2.1. Demarcation as a normative issue The demarcation problem is a classic definitional or ‘what is it?’ question in philosophy. In thinking about this aspect of the problem, we need to recognize that there are different types of definitions. Descriptive definitions attempt to capture (or accurately describe) common (or specialized) meanings and uses of words. A descriptive definition of ‘science’ is what one might find in a dictionary, lexicon, or glossary. Linguists, cultural anthropologists, and other social scientists attempt to provide descriptive definitions. Prescriptive definitions, on the other hand, make recommendations for how we ought to use words. These definitions are based not on a description of usage but on deeper theories that explicate or analyze words. Analytic philosophers, for the most part, have concerned themselves with explicat- A Pragmatic Approach to the Demarcation Problem 251 ing and analyzing terms, instead of merely describing common (or specialized) usage (Gorovitz et al., 1979). For example, philosophical definitions of ‘knowl- edge’ are usually based on epistemological theories, not on common usage. In this essay, I will understand philosophical and practical demarcation problems to be about how we ought to use words. Whether the question is raised in a court of law or in a classroom, the question ‘what is science?’ is primarily an inquiry into how we ought to use the terms ‘science’ and ‘scientific’. If one views it this way, the demarcation problem has inherent normative dimensions. Indeed, the nor- mative aspects of the question can readily be seen when we apply the words ‘science’ and ‘scientific’. We often use the term ‘scientific’ to assert the value, merit, or worth of some thing. We often use the word ‘unscientific’ by contrast, to assert that something lacks worth or value. Thus, ‘science’ and ‘scientific’ are words we use in various kinds of appraisal, criticism, and evaluation (Kitcher, 1992). We use these terms in making both epistemic and practical value judgments. Epistemic value judgments pertain to the epistemic merit, legitimacy, or worth of theories, hypotheses, beliefs, methods, or concepts (Kitcher, 1992). To say that a theory is scientific, in this sense, is a way of saying that it has evidential support or credibility. To say that a theory is unscientific is often a way of saying that it lacks evidential support or credibility. For example, the question concerning the scientific status of the claims of astrology, one might argue, has a direct bearing on its epistemic legitimacy: if astrology is not a science, then it lacks epistemic legitimacy. By contrast, to claim that a discipline, such as economics, is a science, amounts to asserting that its theories, methods, and concepts have epistemic war- rant. Practical value judgments, on the other hand, pertain to the practical, e.g. moral, political, legal, social, legitimacy or worth of theories, hypotheses, beliefs, methods, or concepts. To say that a theory is scientific, in this sense, is a way of saying that it ought to be used or may be used in a particular context for a particular purpose. The terms ‘science’ and ‘scientific’ are often used to endow items with moral, legal, political, or social legitimacy, praise, or approval (Feyerabend, 1975; Long- ino, 1990). Thus, scientific medicine can be used to treat illnesses, but unscientific medicine should not be used (Angell and Kassirer, 1998); scientists can serve as expert scientific witnesses, but non-scientists or pseudoscientists should not be used in this fashion (Huber, 1991); and scientific theories about human origins can be taught in public schools, but unscientific theories should not be taught (Laudan, 1982). These remarks should not be taken to imply, of course, that all and only scientific theories, hypotheses, beliefs, methods, or concepts should be believed or used for practical purposes. One might have good reasons for refusing to believe some scientific statements, and one may have good reasons for believing some non- scientific statements. For example, science tells us that there is very little chance 252 Studies in History and Philosophy of Science that a person survives death, but a person may refuse to believe this statement in order to have hope or comfort in dying. A person may be justified in believing that he is a good poet, even if this claim has no scientific basis, since holding this belief may give him pleasure or enhance the meaningfulness of his life. It is also often appropriate to use some unscientific theories to achieve practical goals or refrain from using scientific ones. For example, in deciding whom to marry, it may be appropriate to use a non-scientific method, such as a ‘gut feeling’, and it may be inappropriate to use a scientific method, such as a blood test. One can recognize the epistemic and practical worth of scientific theories, concepts, methods, and hypotheses without succumbing to closed-mindedness and scientism. 2.2. Sorting through the variety of terms and phrases Since people who discuss the demarcation problem use a variety of terms and phrases, it is important to sort through the various expressions that have been employed. Our first point should be to distinguish between the noun ‘science’ and the adjective ‘scientific’.
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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Beyond the Scientific Method
    ISSUES AND TRENDS Jeffrey W. Bloom and Deborah Trumbull, Section Coeditors Beyond the Scientific Method: Model-Based Inquiry as a New Paradigm of Preference for School Science Investigations MARK WINDSCHITL, JESSICA THOMPSON, MELISSA BRAATEN Curriculum and Instruction, University of Washington, 115 Miller Hall, Box 353600, Seattle, WA 98195, USA Received 19 July 2007; revised 21 November 2007; accepted 29 November 2007 DOI 10.1002/sce.20259 Published online 4 January 2008 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). ABSTRACT: One hundred years after its conception, the scientific method continues to reinforce a kind of cultural lore about what it means to participate in inquiry. As commonly implemented in venues ranging from middle school classrooms to undergraduate laboratories, it emphasizes the testing of predictions rather than ideas, focuses learners on material activity at the expense of deep subject matter understanding, and lacks epistemic framing relevant to the discipline. While critiques of the scientific method are not new, its cumulative effects on learners’ conceptions of science have not been clearly articulated. We discuss these effects using findings from a series of five studies with degree-holding graduates of our educational system who were preparing to enter the teaching profession and apprentice their own young learners into unproblematic images of how science is done. We then offer an alternative vision for investigative science—model-based inquiry (MBI)— as a system of activity and discourse that engages learners more deeply with content and embodies five epistemic characteristics of scientific knowledge: that ideas represented in the form of models are testable, revisable, explanatory, conjectural, and generative.
    [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]
  • The Naturalization of Natural Philosophy
    philosophies Article The Naturalization of Natural Philosophy Joseph E. Brenner International Center for the Philosophy of Information, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’An 710049, China; [email protected] Received: 29 August 2018; Accepted: 4 October 2018; Published: 24 November 2018 Abstract: A new demarcation is proposed between Natural Philosophy and non-Natural Philosophy—philosophy tout court—based on whether or not they follow a non-standard logic of real processes. This non-propositional logic, Logic in Reality (LIR), is based on the original work of the Franco-Romanian thinker Stéphane Lupasco (Bucharest, 1900–Paris, 1988). Many Natural Philosophies remain bounded by dependence on binary linguistic concepts of logic. I claim that LIR can naturalize—bring into science—part of such philosophies. Against the potential objection that my approach blurs the distinction between science and philosophy, I reply that there is no problem in differentiating experimental physical science and philosophy; any complete distinction between philosophy, including the philosophy of science(s) and the other sciences is invidious. It was historically unnecessary and is unnecessary today. The convergence of science and philosophy, proposed by Wu Kun based on implications of the philosophy of information, supports this position. LIR provides a rigorous basis for giving equivalent ontological value to diversity and identity, what is contradictory, inconsistent, absent, missing or past, unconscious, incomplete, and fuzzy as to their positive counterparts. The naturalized Natural Philosophy resulting from the application of these principles is a candidate for the ‘new synthesis’ called for by the editors. Keywords: common good; contradiction; ethics; information; logic; naturalization; realism; science; synthesis 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio Rules of Evidence
    OHIO RULES OF EVIDENCE Article I GENERAL PROVISIONS Rule 101 Scope of rules: applicability; privileges; exceptions 102 Purpose and construction; supplementary principles 103 Rulings on evidence 104 Preliminary questions 105 Limited admissibility 106 Remainder of or related writings or recorded statements Article II JUDICIAL NOTICE 201 Judicial notice of adjudicative facts Article III PRESUMPTIONS 301 Presumptions in general in civil actions and proceedings 302 [Reserved] Article IV RELEVANCY AND ITS LIMITS 401 Definition of “relevant evidence” 402 Relevant evidence generally admissible; irrelevant evidence inadmissible 403 Exclusion of relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion, or undue delay 404 Character evidence not admissible to prove conduct; exceptions; other crimes 405 Methods of proving character 406 Habit; routine practice 407 Subsequent remedial measures 408 Compromise and offers to compromise 409 Payment of medical and similar expenses 410 Inadmissibility of pleas, offers of pleas, and related statements 411 Liability insurance Article V PRIVILEGES 501 General rule Article VI WITNESS 601 General rule of competency 602 Lack of personal knowledge 603 Oath or affirmation Rule 604 Interpreters 605 Competency of judge as witness 606 Competency of juror as witness 607 Impeachment 608 Evidence of character and conduct of witness 609 Impeachment by evidence of conviction of crime 610 Religious beliefs or opinions 611 Mode and order of interrogation and presentation 612 Writing used to refresh memory 613 Impeachment by self-contradiction
    [Show full text]
  • "What Is Evidence?" a Philosophical Perspective
    "WHAT IS EVIDENCE?" A PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVE PRESENTATION SUMMARY NATIONAL COLLABORATING CENTRES FOR PUBLIC HEALTH 2007 SUMMER INSTITUTE "MAKING SENSE OF IT ALL" BADDECK, NOVA SCOTIA, AUGUST 20-23 2007 Preliminary version—for discussion "WHAT IS EVIDENCE?" A PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVE PRESENTATION SUMMARY NATIONAL COLLABORATING CENTRES FOR PUBLIC HEALTH 2007 SUMMER INSTITUTE "MAKING SENSE OF IT ALL" BADDECK, NOVA SCOTIA, AUGUST 20-23 2007 NATIONAL COLLABORATING CENTRE FOR HEALTHY PUBLIC POLICY JANUARY 2010 SPEAKER Daniel Weinstock Research Centre on Ethics, University of Montréal EDITOR Marianne Jacques National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy LAYOUT Madalina Burtan National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy DATE January 2010 The aim of the National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy (NCCHPP) is to increase the use of knowledge about healthy public policy within the public health community through the development, transfer and exchange of knowledge. The NCCHPP is part of a Canadian network of six centres financed by the Public Health Agency of Canada. Located across Canada, each Collaborating Centre specializes in a specific area, but all share a common mandate to promote knowledge synthesis, transfer and exchange. The production of this document was made possible through financial support from the Public Health Agency of Canada and funding from the National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy (NCCHPP). The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Public Health Agency of Canada. This document is available in electronic format (PDF) on the web site of the National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy at www.ncchpp.ca. La version française est disponible sur le site Internet du CCNPPS au www.ccnpps.ca.
    [Show full text]
  • The Problem of Induction
    The Problem of Induction Gilbert Harman Department of Philosophy, Princeton University Sanjeev R. Kulkarni Department of Electrical Engineering, Princeton University July 19, 2005 The Problem The problem of induction is sometimes motivated via a comparison between rules of induction and rules of deduction. Valid deductive rules are necessarily truth preserving, while inductive rules are not. So, for example, one valid deductive rule might be this: (D) From premises of the form “All F are G” and “a is F ,” the corresponding conclusion of the form “a is G” follows. The rule (D) is illustrated in the following depressing argument: (DA) All people are mortal. I am a person. So, I am mortal. The rule here is “valid” in the sense that there is no possible way in which premises satisfying the rule can be true without the corresponding conclusion also being true. A possible inductive rule might be this: (I) From premises of the form “Many many F s are known to be G,” “There are no known cases of F s that are not G,” and “a is F ,” the corresponding conclusion can be inferred of the form “a is G.” The rule (I) might be illustrated in the following “inductive argument.” (IA) Many many people are known to have been moral. There are no known cases of people who are not mortal. I am a person. So, I am mortal. 1 The rule (I) is not valid in the way that the deductive rule (D) is valid. The “premises” of the inductive inference (IA) could be true even though its “con- clusion” is not true.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Philosophy
    An Introduction to Philosophy W. Russ Payne Bellevue College Copyright (cc by nc 4.0) 2015 W. Russ Payne Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document with attribution under the terms of Creative Commons: Attribution Noncommercial 4.0 International or any later version of this license. A copy of the license is found at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ 1 Contents Introduction ………………………………………………. 3 Chapter 1: What Philosophy Is ………………………….. 5 Chapter 2: How to do Philosophy ………………….……. 11 Chapter 3: Ancient Philosophy ………………….………. 23 Chapter 4: Rationalism ………….………………….……. 38 Chapter 5: Empiricism …………………………………… 50 Chapter 6: Philosophy of Science ………………….…..… 58 Chapter 7: Philosophy of Mind …………………….……. 72 Chapter 8: Love and Happiness …………………….……. 79 Chapter 9: Meta Ethics …………………………………… 94 Chapter 10: Right Action ……………………...…………. 108 Chapter 11: Social Justice …………………………...…… 120 2 Introduction The goal of this text is to present philosophy to newcomers as a living discipline with historical roots. While a few early chapters are historically organized, my goal in the historical chapters is to trace a developmental progression of thought that introduces basic philosophical methods and frames issues that remain relevant today. Later chapters are topically organized. These include philosophy of science and philosophy of mind, areas where philosophy has shown dramatic recent progress. This text concludes with four chapters on ethics, broadly construed. I cover traditional theories of right action in the third of these. Students are first invited first to think about what is good for themselves and their relationships in a chapter of love and happiness. Next a few meta-ethical issues are considered; namely, whether they are moral truths and if so what makes them so.
    [Show full text]