• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Naturalism Slides
 

Naturalism Slides

on

  • 3,346 views

Slides from my "Naturalism" lecture in Phil 160 ("Philosophy of Science") at San Jose State University.

Slides from my "Naturalism" lecture in Phil 160 ("Philosophy of Science") at San Jose State University.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
3,346
Views on SlideShare
3,342
Embed Views
4

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
99
Comments
0

2 Embeds 4

http://www.slashdocs.com 3
http://www.slideshare.net 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Naturalism Slides Naturalism Slides Presentation Transcript

    • PHIL 160 Foundationalism Give independent justification for scientific method. Knowledge produced with this method is reliable.
    • PHIL 160 Foundationalism is hard! Reasons to worry that scientific knowledge isn’t reliable:
      • Holism about testing
      • Underdetermination
      • Problem of induction
    • PHIL 160 Maybe we shouldn’t try to justify scientific methodology, just describe it. Sociology of science Foundationalism is hard!
    • PHIL 160 Can’t explain why scientific knowledge is better than any other kind of knowledge. Limitation of Sociology of science: But we want to explain success of science!
    • What is Naturalism? “ Philosophy should be continuous with science.” PHIL 160 Don’t need independent justification for scientific method.
    • PHIL 160 Results from science as a resource to help answer philosophical questions. What is Naturalism? “ Philosophy should be continuous with science.”
    • PHIL 160 Result from science Scientific knowledge is reliable Naturalist philosophy of science? Circular argument!
    • PHIL 160 NOT: How to justify scientific methodology? Naturalism shifts the question INSTEAD: What’s an adequate description of how knowledge and science work?
    • PHIL 160 Science can tell us what the belief-forming mechanisms are. Which belief-forming mechanisms are good ones? Philosopher asks: Good for achieving what goals?
    • PHIL 160 Science can describe the belief-forming mechanism. Is the mechanism responsible for belief that the sun will rise tomorrow a good one?
    • PHIL 160 Philosopher asks: what’s the goal? Is the mechanism responsible for belief that the sun will rise tomorrow a good one?
    • PHIL 160 Is the mechanism responsible for belief that the sun will rise tomorrow a good one? Goal: avoiding error. Mechanism is a risky one. (problem of induction)
    • PHIL 160 Observations can’t be an objective test of a theory! Kuhn: Observations are theory-laden.
    • PHIL 160 Müller-Lyer illusion
    • PHIL 160 Some background assumptions affect what you perceive. Other background assumptions don’t affect what you perceive.
    • PHIL 160 What you see is not affected by knowledge that this is an illusion! Müller-Lyer illusion
    • PHIL 160 PERCEPTUAL MODULE THEORY
    • PHIL 160 Perceptual module Scientific theory Experience Interpretation of experience
    • PHIL 160 Perceptual module output is fairly uniform. Experience could provide objective basis for evaluating theories!
    • Scientific resources : Sociology, organizational psychology PHIL 160 Philosophical task : Explain special features of science. David Hull
    • Merton’s four norms of science:
      • Universalism
      • Communism
      • Disinterestedness
      • Organized Skepticism
      PHIL 160
    • Merton’s reward system of science: Priority claim (recognition as first to come up with an idea or result) PHIL 160
    • USE (other scientists use and cite your idea or result) PHIL 160 Hull’s reward system of science:
    • Tension between Merton’s norms and reward system. Easier to get the reward (priority) if you subvert norms! PHIL 160
    • I use ideas of others: PHIL 160
      • To build my ideas.
      • To support my ideas.
      (Need to build my ideas before others can use them!) Hull’s reward system requires cooperation!
    • Want my idea to be used PHIL 160
      • Check ideas of others before using them to build my ideas.
      • Check my own work to make sure others can use it to build their ideas.
      Organized skepticism flows from reward system.
    • PHIL 160
      • Share ideas widely so others may use them.
      Communism flows from reward system. Want my idea to be used
    • Usable ideas: PHIL 160
      • Survive testing.
      • Fit well with other ideas.
      • Lead to new ideas.
      These are ideas that fit well with the world!
    • Hull’s picture fits with human nature I might not be skeptical of my own ideas. PHIL 160 Community is skeptical of ideas (tested when used).
    • Hull’s picture: PHIL 160
      • Explains why science has these norms.
      • Explains how these norms make science successful.
    • Philip Kitcher Scientific resources : game theory PHIL 160 Philosophical task : Determine best distribution of researchers among rival research programs, and what science should do to attain this distribution.
    • Interests of individual scientists PHIL 160 How to set up science so these interests harmonize? Interests of scientific field
    • PHIL 160 What is best for science? 5% chance both will fail Put all workers on Research Program 1 (80% chance of success) Put most workers on Research Program 1, but put some on Research Program 2 (95% chance of success) Research Program 1 80 % chance of success Research Program 2 15 % chance of success
    • PHIL 160 Put most workers on Research Program 1 ( enough that additional workers wouldn’t make a difference ), Put remaining workers on Research Program 2 “ Decreasing marginal returns”
    • PHIL 160 How does individual choose? Choose Research Program likely to bring me the biggest reward. Research Program 1 80 % chance of success Research Program 2 15 % chance of success
    • PHIL 160 Possible reward structure: Research Program that succeeds Research Program that fails Each worker gets prestige p . Each worker gets no prestige.
    • PHIL 160 Join Research Program 1 (80% chance I’ll earn prestige p ) Join Research Program 2 (15% chance I’ll earn prestige p ) How does individual choose? Problem: No one will choose to join Research Program 2! Research Program 1 80 % chance of success Research Program 2 15 % chance of success
    • PHIL 160 Kitcher’s reward structure: Each worker gets prestige p divided by number of workers. Each worker gets no prestige. The bigger the group, the smaller the share of prestige. Research Program that succeeds Research Program that fails
    • PHIL 160 Join Research Program 2 (15% chance I’ll earn prestige p/M ) How does individual choose? If N>>M, better expected payoff if I join Research Program 2 Research Program 1 80 % chance of success (N workers) Research Program 2 15 % chance of success (M workers) Join Research Program 1 (80% chance I’ll earn prestige p/N )
    • PHIL 160 Refinement to model: z % chance both will fail Chances of success depend in part on number of workers pursuing the program! Workers who join early increase chances a lot. Workers who join late make less difference. Research Program 2 y % chance of success Research Program 1 x % chance of success
    • PHIL 160 Bigger reward if you join early and make a big contribution. Research Program that succeeds Research Program that fails Strevens’ reward structure: Each worker gets share of prestige p proportional to his actual contribution. Each worker gets no prestige.