NOVEL PREDICTION AND THE UNDERDETERMINATION OF SCIENTIFIC THEORY BUILDING Richard Dawid Univ. of Vienna.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Knowledge as JTB Someone S has knowledge of P IFF: 1. S believes P 2. S is justified in believing P 3. P is true.
Advertisements

Believing Where We Cannot Prove Philip Kitcher
Value conflicts and assumptions - 1 While an author usually offers explicit reasons why he comes to a certain conclusion, he also makes (implicit) assumptions.
A2 Ethics How to assess arguments and theories. Aims  To discuss various methods of assessing arguments and theories  To apply these methods to some.
Phil 148 Explanations. Inferences to the Best Explanation. IBE is also known as ‘abductive reasoning’ It is the kind of reasoning (not deduction) that.
Causality Causality Hill’s Criteria Cross sectional studies.
Best Practice Precepts [... next] Arguments Arguments Possibility of the Impossible Possibility of the Impossible Belief, Truth, and Reality Belief, Truth,
Chapter 1 Critical Thinking.
A thinking map We have looked at a large number of pieces of reasoning types, and now we need a thinking map of how to best analyse, understand, and evaluate.
Everything You Need to Know (since the midterm). Diagnosis Abductive diagnosis: a minimal set of (positive and negative) assumptions that entails the.
4 Why Should we Believe Politicians? Lupia and McCubbins – The Democratic Dilemma GV917.
The Problem of Induction Reading: ‘The Problem of Induction’ by W. Salmon.
Moral Relativism, Cultural Differences and Bioethics Prof. Eric Barnes.
Testing Hypotheses About Proportions Chapter 20. Hypotheses Hypotheses are working models that we adopt temporarily. Our starting hypothesis is called.
Perception and Individual Decision Making
Metaethics and ethical language Michael Lacewing Michael Lacewing
Against the Empirical Viability of the DWE Approach to QM Against the Empirical Viability of the DWE Approach to QM Richard Dawid and Karim Thebault The.
Limitations to Underdetermination of Theory Building and their Role in Fundamental Physics Richard Dawid.
Science and induction  Science and we assume causation (cause and effect relationships)  For empiricists, all the evidence there is for empirical knowledge,
A response to the skeptic Phil 2233, Fall Some things I know about the past I had scrambled eggs for breakfast this morning. John F. Kennedy was.
Lecture 6 1. Mental gymnastics to prepare to tackle Hume 2. The Problem of Induction as Hume argues for it 1. His question 2. His possible solutions 3.
Developing Ideas for Research and Evaluating Theories of Behavior
The Problem of Induction Reading: ‘The Problem of Induction’ by W. Salmon.
Qualitative research in psychology. A distinct research process Inquiries of knowledge that are outside the framework prescribed by the scientific method,
Introduction, Acquiring Knowledge, and the Scientific Method
Science and Engineering Practices
Introduction to Earth Science Doing Science.  Scientific method – a systemic approach to answering questions about the natural world  Sufficient observation.
Critical Thinking in Education. Defining Critical Thinking Asking pertinent questions Evaluates statements & arguments Admits a lack of knowledge & understanding.
Argumentation in Middle & High School Science Victor Sampson Assistant Professor of Science Education School of Teacher Education and FSU-Teach Florida.
Chapter 13 Science and Hypothesis.  Modern science has had a profound impact on our lives— mostly for the better.  The laws and principles of science.
Dr. Fred Mugambi Mwirigi JKUAT
Today’s Quote Use soft words and hard arguments English Proverb.
Big Idea 1: The Practice of Science Description A: Scientific inquiry is a multifaceted activity; the processes of science include the formulation of scientifically.
A Framework of Mathematics Inductive Reasoning Reporter: Lee Chun-Yi Advisor: Chen Ming-Puu Christou, C., & Papageorgiou, E. (2007). A framework of mathematics.
Making a Claim Grounds for Claim Evaluation Beyond Brainstorm.
LO: I will evaluate Hume’s argument against Miracles. Starter: Responses to Andrew Wilson’s chapter.
Hypotheses tests for means
Copyright © 2011 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill/Irwin Developing and Evaluating Theories of Behavior.
Biological Science.
Frequentistic approaches in physics: Fisher, Neyman-Pearson and beyond Alessandro Palma Dottorato in Fisica XXII ciclo Corso di Probabilità e Incertezza.
1 The Theoretical Framework. A theoretical framework is similar to the frame of the house. Just as the foundation supports a house, a theoretical framework.
Chapter 27: Hypotheses, Explanations, and Inference to the Best Explanation.
CHAPTER 15: Tests of Significance The Basics ESSENTIAL STATISTICS Second Edition David S. Moore, William I. Notz, and Michael A. Fligner Lecture Presentation.
Hypothesis Testing An understanding of the method of hypothesis testing is essential for understanding how both the natural and social sciences advance.
What kinds of things are we certain about?. Mathematical and logical truths.
Lecture PowerPoint Slides Basic Practice of Statistics 7 th Edition.
LO: I will evaluate Hume’s argument against Miracles. Hmk – Prepare presentations for Tuesday’s lesson.
Miracles: Hume and Howard-Snyder. * For purposes of initial clarity, let's define a miracle as a worldly event that is not explicable by natural causes.
Transient Unterdetermination and the Miracle Argument Paul Hoyningen-Huene Leibniz Universität Hannover Center for Philosophy and Ethics of Science (ZEWW)
INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS The aim of this tutorial is to help you learn to recognize, analyze and evaluate inductive arguments.
Section 10.2: Tests of Significance Hypothesis Testing Null and Alternative Hypothesis P-value Statistically Significant.
I think therefore I am - Rene Descartes. REASON (logic) It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence.
What is an argument? An argument is, to quote the Monty Python sketch, "a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition." Huh? Three.
CHAPTER 15: Tests of Significance The Basics ESSENTIAL STATISTICS Second Edition David S. Moore, William I. Notz, and Michael A. Fligner Lecture Presentation.
Tests of Significance We use test to determine whether a “prediction” is “true” or “false”. More precisely, a test of significance gets at the question.
Research methods revision The next couple of lessons will be focused on recapping and practicing exam questions on the following parts of the specification:
Philosophy of science What is a scientific theory? – Is a universal statement Applies to all events in all places and time – Explains the behaviour/happening.
Writing a sound proposal
KARL POPPER ON THE PROBLEM OF A THEORY OF SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Testing Hypotheses about Proportions
Chapter 9: Successful Paragraphs
The Effects of Code Usage in Intercultural Communication
IS Psychology A Science?
IS Psychology A Science?
Developing and Evaluating Theories of Behavior
Nature of Science Understandings for HS
The Nature of Science How can you differentiate between science and non-science using the scientific method?
On Arguments from Testimony
Research Strategies: How Psychologists Ask and Answer Questions
Important Concepts Above and Beyond Biology I
Presentation transcript:

NOVEL PREDICTION AND THE UNDERDETERMINATION OF SCIENTIFIC THEORY BUILDING Richard Dawid Univ. of Vienna

A General Strategy To the Bayesian, confirmation is an increase of the probability of a theorys truth due to empirical data. P(T |E)/P(T)= P(E|T)/P(E) Per se, it does not matter whether the data has influenced theory construction or not. Novel confirmation does not directly raise confirmation value. However, the observation that novel confirmation took place can itself constitute data which confirms a statement that in turn raises the probability of T.

Some suggested ideas A number of authors have used that strategy and proposed various qualities which are to be assessed by observing novel confirmation. Patrick Maher: novel confirmation confirms that the method of theory construction (rather than the theory itself) is good. Hitchcock & Sober: n.c. indicates that there is no overfitting. Kahn,Landsberg,Stockman: n.c confirms that the scientist who constructed the theory before confirmation is competent. Eric Barnes: n. c. confirms that the scientist who endorsed the theory before confirmation is capable.

The same principle, a different suggestion Claim: Looking for novel confirmation can lead to an assessment of a crucial characteristic of the scientific context: the underdetermination of scientific theory building by the available data. In a number of scientific contexts, in particular in modern physics, this assessment constitutes the most important extra- value of novel confirmation over accommodation. This does not imply that other construals of an extra-value of n. c. are false. N.c. may well work at various levels. However, we suggest that underdetermination plays a pivotal role in the case of physics.

Underdetermination of Scientific Theory Building Hume Quine-Duhem Quine [reasons for indet. of transl.] van Fraassen Sklar, Stanford (transient underdet.) Scientific Underdet. by all possible evidence available evidence logically ampliatively

The Framework Assumption: a priori, scientists cant be expected to construct the theory that will be empirically successful in the future. If many scientific theories are possible which fit the available data satisfy scientificality conditions C give different predictions regarding upcoming experiments then chances are high that scientists find the wrong theory. (In the simplest model, if there are i such theories, chances are 1/i.) Alluding to additional criteria like simplicity, beauty, etc. adds to the conditions C but does not change the argument.

The Argument Inversely, if novel predictive success occurs, that indicates limitations to scientific underdetermination. Meta-inductive reasoning then leads to the inference that, if limitations to scientific underdetermination frequently occur at some level at one stage, they are likely to occur at following stages as well. => therefore, the observation of novel confirmation raises the probability for the theorys truth. To the contrary, accommodation does not tell anything about scientific underdetermination. o In the extreme case where no limitations are assumed, P(T)=0 and no confirmation occurs. o If one assumes some limitations a priori, there is some confirmation but it is weaker than in the case of novel confirmation.

Comparison with other Approaches (1) Example: The standard model of particle physics (SM) The Higgs is the last of many SM predictions. All others were successful. SM is strongly believed in due to its n.c. successes. SM was developed in the early 60s, got first n.c. in the mid 70s and since then is believed in by most physicists. Situation today quite different than back then. Lots of new knowledge. Developers and early endorsers back then are not the leading experts today. o relating an evaluation of developers/ endorsers to theory assessment seems problematic. – People dont t believe in the SM today because n.c. has shown Weinbergs competence in the 1960s. – Whether or not there were early endorsers does not matter either. => It seems far more plausible that n.c. evaluates the scientific context rather than scientific agents.

Comparison with other Approaches (2) Hitchcock and Sober do not work in the SM case either. – Developing the SM is a matter of finding a general scheme that solves general consistency problems. Overfitting plays no role. Assessment of scientific underdetermination adresses precisely the context of finding consistent solution and asking how many alternative solutions exist. - The SM shows these points with particular clarity – Due to the strong theoretical constraints, it highlights the importance of consistency. – Due to the long time periods, the problems of Kahn et al and Barnes become more conspicuous. However, the use of n.c. seems characteristic of fundamental physics.

Distinction between AoU and other Ideas Scenario: – First one theory A is developed and endorsed. – Then A gets empirically confirmed by data D. – Then someone else discovers that theory B also reproduces data D. ?Question: does novel confirmation favour A over B? Many approaches (Kahn et al., Hitchcock&Sober) would say yes. AoU says no: underdetermination is the same for A and B. Reduction of P(T) due to new known alternative at the same level as comparison between A and B. o When consistency is a dominating factor, AoU looks good. o When not, other approaches fare better. ! However: predictive power seems strongest when consistency is an issue.

Conclusion Assessment of scientific underdetermination constitutes a crucial reason for the higher confirmation value of novel confirmation. It applies in contexts where questions of consistency are important in theory building. Arguably, those are the contexts where novel confirmation occurs most frequently.