Science deductively conclusion argument premises empirical based demarcation

Text	A priori science, like Euclid’s geometry, is where the conclusions are deduced from premises that appear to be self-evidently true.In empirical science, like physics, conclusions are based on observational data.This is similar to the distinction between pure mathematics and applied mathematics. The distinction is not always sharp. Ever since Einstein rejected the use of Euclidean geometry in his new physics at the turn of the 20thcentury, it seems that a priori sciences cannot tell us anything about the real world. The focus of recent philosophy of science is on the empirical sciences. A priori sciences contain the strongest form of reasoning, at the expense of telling us less about the real world. Introduction to the Demarcation Problem Definition: In philosophy of science, we refer to what we already know directly through observation as the empirical evidence (we are open-minded about the possibility that some of these ‘facts’ are mistaken). See Exercise 1. All of empirical science uses ampliative arguments. Hume made the same point in a different way. He pointed that in example 8, it is possible that the premises are true and the conclusion is false. No matter how many instances of a generalization we observe, it does not prove that the generalization is true. What is the difference between science and pseudoscience? You often hear that science is based on the ‘facts’ while pseudoscience is not. Or you say that religious belief is based on faith, whereas scientific belief is not. Unfortunately, both scientific and non-scientific reasoning go beyond the facts. So, can we tell them apart? Argument: The demarcation between science and pseudoscience depends only the nature of the reasoning used.Genuine science involves ampliative inference.Pseudoscience involves ampliative inference.Therefore, there is no demarcation between science and pseudoscience. The problem of demarcation is to say what is wrong with this argument. (Question: what are the two things that can be wrong with an argument?) Review of Central Definitions and Remarks on Terminology Definition: An argument is deductively valid if and only if it is impossible that its conclusion is false while its premises are true. Remark: The notion of deductively validity is such a central and important concept in philosophy, that is goes by several names. When an argument is deductively valid, we say that the conclusionfollows from the premises, or the conclusion is deduced from, or inferred from, or proved from the premises. Or we may say that the premises imply, or entail, or prove the conclusion. We also talk of deductively valid arguments as beingdemonstrative. All these different terms mean exactly the same thing, so the situation is far simpler than it appears. Definition: Any argument that is not deductively valid, or deductively invalid, is an ampliative argument. The term refers to the fact that the conclusion of such argument goes beyond, or amplifies upon, the premises. Remark: Again the notion of ‘invalid’ is so common and central, that it goes by many names. Other terms commonly used are inductive and non-demonstrative. I prefer ‘ampliative’ because it reminds us that the conclusion ‘goes beyond’ the premises, and it does not have the bad reputation that sometimes goes along with the word 'induction.'

Text

A priori science, like Euclid’s geometry, is where the conclusions are deduced from premises that appear to be self-evidently true.In empirical science, like physics, conclusions are based on observational data.This is similar to the distinction between pure mathematics and applied mathematics. The distinction is not always sharp.

Ever since Einstein rejected the use of Euclidean geometry in his new physics at the turn of the 20thcentury, it seems that a priori sciences cannot tell us anything about the real world. The focus of recent philosophy of science is on the empirical sciences.

A priori sciences contain the strongest form of reasoning, at the expense of telling us less about the real world.

Introduction to the Demarcation Problem

Definition: In philosophy of science, we refer to what we already know directly through observation as the empirical evidence (we are open-minded about the possibility that some of these ‘facts’ are mistaken). See Exercise 1.

All of empirical science uses ampliative arguments. Hume made the same point in a different way. He pointed that in example 8, it is possible that the premises are true and the conclusion is false. No matter how many instances of a generalization we observe, it does not prove that the generalization is true.

What is the difference between science and pseudoscience? You often hear that science is based on the ‘facts’ while pseudoscience is not. Or you say that religious belief is based on faith, whereas scientific belief is not. Unfortunately, both scientific and non-scientific reasoning go beyond the facts. So, can we tell them apart?

Argument:

The demarcation between science and pseudoscience depends only the nature of the reasoning used.Genuine science involves ampliative inference.Pseudoscience involves ampliative inference.Therefore, there is no demarcation between science and pseudoscience.

The problem of demarcation is to say what is wrong with this argument. (Question: what are the two things that can be wrong with an argument?)

Review of Central Definitions and Remarks on Terminology

Definition: An argument is deductively valid if and only if it is impossible that its conclusion is false while its premises are true.

Remark: The notion of deductively validity is such a central and important concept in philosophy, that is goes by several names. When an argument is deductively valid, we say that the conclusionfollows from the premises, or the conclusion is deduced from, or inferred from, or proved from the premises. Or we may say that the premises imply, or entail, or prove the conclusion. We also talk of deductively valid arguments as beingdemonstrative. All these different terms mean exactly the same thing, so the situation is far simpler than it appears.

Definition: Any argument that is not deductively valid, or deductively invalid, is an ampliative argument. The term refers to the fact that the conclusion of such argument goes beyond, or amplifies upon, the premises.

Remark: Again the notion of ‘invalid’ is so common and central, that it goes by many names. Other terms commonly used are inductive and non-demonstrative. I prefer ‘ampliative’ because it reminds us that the conclusion ‘goes beyond’ the premises, and it does not have the bad reputation that sometimes goes along with the word 'induction.'

Tags: fallacies

Learn with these flashcards. Click next, previous, or up to navigate to more flashcards for this subject.