HUMN3991_Assignment 1_13FEB2024

docx

School

University of Saskatchewan *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

270

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by SargentArt11461

1 Haroon Nawroz Student ID: T00739989 Assignment 1 Open Learning, Thompson Rivers University HUMN 3991_Issues in Science and Society Mark Butorac 2/13/2024

2 Part A: What is the demarcation question? The demarcation question focuses on how to distinguish science from non-science, "demarcating science from pseudoscience” (Okisha 13). The concept emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between scientific claims and other methods of belief, which may lack empirical evidence. Okasha asserts that the fundamental features of a scientific theory are that it should be falsifiable, where predictions can be tested against experience “is it actually possible to find some common features shared by all and only the things we call science” (Okisha 16). What is the difference between a category according to Kant and Aristotle? The difference between a category according to Kant and Aristotle is that Kant analyzes categories based on logical relationships, while Aristotle is based on the classification of things in the physical world. Additionally, Kaunt asserts that the object in question can be categorized based on its appearance in general. However, Aristotle follows specific principles such as substance, quantity, quality, relation, action, affection, place, time, position, and state that could be declared of anything in general. What is the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning? Inductive reasoning refers to making predictions or generalizations based on observations, while deductive reasoning begins with general premises and utilizes them to reach a specific conclusion. Alternatively, with inductive reasoning, the premises do not imply the conclusion, while in deductive reasoning, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true as well.

3 What is the relationship between the inference to the best explanation and inductive reasoning? There is a strong relationship between inference to the best explanation and inductive reasoning. Inference to the best explanation refers to a type of reasoning where different explanations for a given observation are evaluated and the best explanation that fits the available evidence is chosen, thereby drawing inductive conclusions based on the evidence at hand. Additionally, the inference to the best explanation can be considered a particular application of inductive reasoning, determining the best plausible explanation for a specific situation. What is the difference between metaphysical realism and scientific realism? Metaphysical realism emphasizes the existence of an external reality that exists independently of an individual's perception, suggesting a single and objective truth about individual knowledge and the nature of reality. On the other hand, scientific realism focuses particularly on scientific knowledge and empirical evidence, highlighting the importance of scientific theories explaining and predicting phenomena. While scientific realism is substantially focused on scientific theories, metaphysical realism deals with the broader nature of reality. Provide an example of a limitation of logical positivism. Logical positivism is a theory emphasizing the significance of empirical evidence and logical analysis in understanding the world. A limitation of logical positivism is that it does not fully acknowledge the history of science, forming an "inaccurate and naïve picture of the scientific enterprise” (Okisha 75). According to Okisha, an example of the limitation of logical positivism

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

4 is the Darwinian revolution in biology, which led to a fundamental change in the world view (74). What is the difference between Leibnitz and Newton on absolute space? Both Leibnitz and Newton have different perspectives on the notion of absolute space. According to Leibnitz, space is rational and only exists because of its link to other objects and their positions, meaning that space is not an independent entity but rather the result of the relationships between objects. However, Newton maintains that all motion and positions are measurable, and that absolute space is a fixed framework that exists independently regardless of the presence of objects. Part B: Q2: What is the correlation between Hume’s problem of induction and the uniformity of nature? How does this relate to the problem of probability? Hume’s problem of induction emphasizes making predictions based on past experiences as well as analyzing the concept of cause and effect. The uniformity of nature is a theory demonstrating that the law of nature is consistent thereby continues to function in the same way in the future. It focuses on the assumption that there is a correlation between the past and the future, assuming that the future will be like the past. Hume argues that reasoning cannot be based on facts and real existence rather it’s a probable reasoning” all reasoning proceeds upon the supposition that the future will be conformable to the past” (Hume 15). These ideas are linked to the problem of probability examining how individuals assess the likelihood of future events based on past experiences.

5 Hume argues that past events do not guarantee future outcomes, referring to the uniformity of nature, which assumes consistent laws of nature over time. For example, all the dogs you have met have been nice and friendly therefore we may naturally assume that all dogs are friendly. Nonetheless, Hume's problem of induction questions whether this assumption is justified. He contends that this does not imply that all dogs in the future will be the same as all the dogs we have encountered in the past, challenging individuals’ ability to generalize based on past patterns. Additionally, Hume argues that the “use of induction cannot be rationally justified at all, relying on the assumption that the future will resemble the past” (Okasha 20). He suggests that there is no rational justification to confidently rely on induction to make predictions about the past. Due to inductive reasoning not being able to essentially provide certainty, probability comes into play” probability refers to how often things in the world happen or tend to happen” (Okasha 31). The concept of probability allows us to challenge Humes' problem of induction by determining the likelihood of something based on its probability, rather than relying on inductive reasoning. Q3: With reference to Hempel’s covering law of explanation and the problem of symmetry, consider whether science can explain everything. Even though science has made incredible progress in understanding the natural world, there are still phenomena that may elude complete explanation. Hampel's covering law of explanation and the problem of symmetry explores the scientific method of deducing specific events from general laws and initial conditions, challenging the uniqueness of scientific explanations. He suggests that the same general laws and initial conditions do not have a specific explanation but rather may explain multiple outcomes, thereby raising questions about the comprehensiveness of scientific explanations” to give scientific explanation is thus to provide satisfactory answer to an

6 explanation seeking “why” question” (Okasha 37). For instance, despite scientific consensus, complex situations like climate change influenced by human activities are challenging to understand and predict, thereby requiring further empirical investigation. Hampel’s highlights the importance of providing a satisfactory answer to the “why” question based on logical consistency and empirical support in scientific explanation. This means that a scientific explanation should consist of general laws and principles that, when combined with initial conditions, can explain a specific event. Hampel asserts that these laws, along with the initial conditions, are significant in establishing the basis for a deductive-nomological explanation. In problem of symmetry, Hampel states about the intricate nature of scientific explanation and how explanations can be symmetrically created and utilized in multiple directions. This implies that if a set of laws can explain why a certain condition arises, it should be able to explain why the event occurs by applying the same principles of explanation in the opposite direction. However, Hampel argues that not all explanations are symmetrical; there are asymmetrical explanations, meaning that an explanation can be more insightful and informative in one direction than another. Q5: Why might sociobiology be wrong? Sociobiology is a field that studies social phenomena by examining the biological basis of social behavior within evolutionary contexts, examining how evolutionary processes influence social behavior and traits. According to Darwin” Sociobiology, is the branch of evolutionary biology that studies social behavior in all social species” (Holcomb 3). The subject focuses on the impacts of significant biological and social patterns affecting social behavior, such as genetic factors, social interactions, and ecological conditions. Sociobiologists study social behaviors such as communication, cooperation, competition, aggression, social status, hierarchies, and

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

7 individual or parental care. These behaviors help sociobiologists understand how evolutionary and genetic basis impacts social interaction among various species and affects reproductive success. However, Sociobiology has been criticized regarding understanding the etiology of social behavior. Some scholars argue that sociobiology focusing on genetic factors has negative political consequences and may oversimplify the complex social behaviors and influence of cultural, environmental, and individual factors in shaping behavior. According to Holcomb (1993) “sociobiology is simply bad science with politically dangerous implications, pretending that what is cultural and historically is really biological and natural"(p 6). For example, sociobiology argues that individual aggressive behavior is solely based on genetic predispositions, thereby overlooking other factors such as cultural norms, environmental factors, and social behavior, which could also impact aggressive behavior. Moreover, sociobiology is potentially criticized for using human as a tool for justification of status and social hierarchies "uses a human nature ideology to justify status quo inequalities between races, sexes, and classes as natural, genetic and inevitable” (Holcomb 7).

8 Part C: Q2: Refer to the assigned readings and video clips and analyze the relevance of the realism and ant-realism debate in relation to Thomas Kuhn’s argument on the nature of scientific revolutions. The question of whether scientific theories are true or merely products of human imagination is at the center of the realism vs anti-realism debate. Realism holds that scientific theories are a reflection of an objective reality while anti-realism argues that scientific ideas are more man- made constructs. Kuhn's argument suggests a scientific revolution occurs when old theories fail to explain new observations, challenging the single objective reality theory that science progressively uncovers. His theory emphasizes that logical empiricists' insufficient consideration of the history of science has hindered their ability to provide a comprehensive understanding of science. According to Kuhn” neither science nor the development of knowledge is likely to be understood if research is viewed exclusively through the revolutions, it occasionally produces” (Nnaji 103). He discovered a paradigm describing daily science activities where existing ideas are replaced with new ones after a discovery and significant shift in the fundamental scientific worldview. However, Kuhn's argument on the nature of the scientific revolution has been widely criticized by many scientists and philosophers for its anti-realism tendencies. Some argue that his theory of paradigms and paradigm shifts is vague and subjective, thereby not being able to specifically determine when a new paradigm should modify an old one. Kuhn argues that this paradigm is a set of “assumptions, beliefs, and values that aim to unite the scientific community, allowing daily scientific activities to function effectively” (Okasha 76). He asserts that scientists conduct research and experiments to align with established scientific theories, accepting data without altering the parameters of these accepted theories. For instance,

9 a scientist studying climate change has supporting data claiming that the earth's temperature is rising. This observation contradicts the current paradigm, which holds that the earth's temperature is stable, according to Kuhn's theory. However, if the scientific community accepts this observation, it may cause a paradigm shift, with the new paradigm holding that the earth's temperature is rising because of other factors, such as human activity. Additionally, abnormalities are often overlooked until they accumulate to the point where they cannot be ignored, where eventually a scientific revolution takes place, and a new paradigm is proposed that is more accurate scientifically than the previous accepted theory. In Kuhn’s theory, this change in acceptance by the scientific community involves an act of faith and is not thoroughly based on scientific evidence. Additionally, Kuhn argues that scientific development is not always linear, as it doesn't always accumulate new ideas and progress towards the truth, challenging the concept of objective reality” the facts of the world are paradigm-relative and thus change when the paradigms change” (Okasha 79). However, critics argue that it's just a perspective shift, not a scientific revolution, meaning that the new paradigm is just a modification of the old one, not a complete eradication. They believe that science is more about finding truth based on accurate data, observation and testing rather than shifting between various frameworks. Furthermore, anti-realism asserts that science isn’t about discovering the ultimate truth but rather aims to find theories that are empirically adequate for creating models that work well for specific purposes. According to Okasha (2016) “anti-realist argues that the prevalence of idealized models in science supports their view” (Okasha 57). Scientists viewed Kuhn’s theory as anti- realist in nature, criticizing it for being too subjective and not considering objective evidence” science is largely-non rational activity, characterized by dogmatic adherence to paradigm in normal periods” (Okasha 86). However, Kuhn challenges this claim that individual choices are

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

10 influenced by both quantitative accuracy and subjective variables, such as human desires and risk-taking. He suggests that rational philosophers may balance the risk of incorrectness with the potential for novel insights, while realists may acknowledge the hard decisions involved in deciding between paradigms. He states that his arguments are based on a more” realistic, historically accurate picture of how science actually develops and to provide a better understanding of what scientific rationality involves” (Okasha 83). This demonstrates that Kuhn's paradigm presents a range of perspectives, including anti-realism and realism, which can be contradictory and challenging to understand.

11 References: Hume, David, (1739), A Treatise of Human Nature, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Holcomb, Harmon R. Sociobiology, Sex, and Science. SUNY Press, 1993. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=8050&site=eds- live&scope=site Okisha, Samir. (2016). Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Nnaji, John, and José Luis Luján. “The Content of Science Debate in the Historiography of the Scientific Revolution.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 30, no. 2, June 2016, pp. 99–109. EBSCOhost, https://doi-org.ezproxy.tru.ca/10.1080/02698595.2016.1265864

HUMN3991_Assignment 1_13FEB2024

Related Documents