Scientific Explanations. Aristotle’s Explanations Aristotle’s example of an efficient cause Aristotle’s example of an efficient cause The father is uglyThe.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Reason and Argument Induction (Part of Ch. 9 and part of Ch. 10)
Advertisements

The Basics of Logical Argument Two Kinds of Argument The Deductive argument: true premises guarantee a true conclusion. e.g. All men are mortal. Socrates.
Free will and determinism
Last week Change minds; influence people Premises Conclusion
Stuart Glennan Butler University.  The generalist view: Particular events are causally related because they fall under general laws  The singularist.
“The Scientific Method”
LECTURE 6 NECESSITY & G. E. MOORE ON THE ERROR OF THE ABSOLUTE IDEALISTS.
Hume’s Problem of Induction. Most of our beliefs about the world have been formed from inductive inference. (e.g., all of science, folk physics/psych)
Deduction and Induction
Some Methods and Interests. Argument Argument is at the heart of philosophy Argument is at the heart of philosophy It is the only method for getting results.
The Cosmological Argument. Aquinas’s Cosmological Argument Cosmological Argument is ‘a posteriori’ Attempts to prove the existence of God There are three.
Substance dualism: do Descartes’ arguments work? Michael Lacewing
Tirgul 10 Rehearsal about Universal Hashing Solving two problems from theoretical exercises: –T2 q. 1 –T3 q. 2.
Chapter Two SCIENTIFIC METHODS IN BUSINESS
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.
Explanation DN, SN & more. Deductive-Nomological The standard example: To explain the length of its shadow, we appeal to the height of the flagpole and.
The Role of Business Research Theory Building
Nursing Knowledge Chapter 8 Logical positivism and mid-century philosophy of science Presented by Justin Fallin October 25, 2014 Professor: Dr. Tomlinson.
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 7 The argument from evil By David Kelsey.
Critical Thinking Lecture 12 Causal Arguments
PHIL/RS 335 Arguments for God’s Existence Pt. 1: The Cosmological Argument.
Methods of Observation PS 204A, Week 2. What is Science? Science is: (think Ruse) Based on natural laws/empirical regularities. Based on natural laws/empirical.
Stuart Glennan Butler University September  Terminological Questions: What is history?  A Selective Survey of Models of Explanation – their Problems.
What is Science?.
MGF 1107 Mathematics of Social Choice Part 1a – Introduction, Deductive and Inductive Reasoning.
Reasoning!? What’s that???  Reasoning is the act of drawing a conclusion.  You use premises to help you draw a conclusion. Some conclusions are more.
‘The only serious philosophical question is whether to commit suicide or not…’ Albert Camus 7 November 1913 – 4 January 1960 ‘The Myth of Sisyphus’ What.
Why did the young man name his puppies Biology, Chemistry and Physics?
4/23/2017 HYPOTHESIS Moazzam Ali.
Basics of Probability. A Bit Math A Probability Space is a triple, where  is the sample space: a non-empty set of possible outcomes; F is an algebra.
Who Defined the Study of Philosophy and Logic? ________,___________,__________ These three philosophers form the basis of what is known as__________________.
Inductive and Deductive Reasoning. Inductive Observing the data, recognizing a pattern and making generalizations Do you see a pattern Can you describe.
Logic. What is logic? Logic (from the Ancient Greek: λογική, logike) is the use and study of valid reasoning. The study of logic features most prominently.
Nature of Science. Science is a Tentative Enterprise  The product of the judgment of individuals  Requires individuals to defend their conclusions by.
The Problem of Induction. Aristotle’s Inductions Aristotle’s structure of knowledge consisted of explanations such as: Aristotle’s structure of knowledge.
Chapter Two: Explaining Winston Jackson and Norine Verberg Methods: Doing Social Research, 4e.
Shoemaker, “Causality and Properties” Events are the terms involved in causal relations. But all causal relationships seem to involve a change of properties.
What do we cover in section C?. Unit 4 research methods Explain the key features of scientific investigation and discuss whether psychology can be defined.
Philosophical Aspects of Science Soraj Hongladarom Department of Philosophy Faculty of Arts.
Scientific Methods and Terminology. Scientific methods are The most reliable means to ensure that experiments produce reliable information in response.
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY SECTION 1: THE STUDY OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY.
Intertheoretic Reduction and Explanation in Mathematics
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.
Psychonomics: the ontology of psychology Psychonomics: The ontology of psychology.
ELA What is an essay? An essay is an extended piece of writing in which an author explores a subject in some detail. Skilled essayists do the following:
Philosophy 104 Chapter 8 Notes (Part 1). Induction vs Deduction Fogelin and Sinnott-Armstrong describe the difference between induction and deduction.
The problem of induction
The Nature of Science and The Scientific Method Chemistry – Lincoln High School Mrs. Cameron.
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.
REASONING & LOGIC What’s the purpose of knowing? Reasoning is the “most” important and difficult skill a persuasive speaker can acquire. It adds to your.
Scientific Explanation  Suppose we assume that explanation and prediction of phenomena are the goals/purposes of science  Suppose we also assume that.
Criticisms of the Cosmological argument Hume, Mackie and Anscombe.
The Cosmological Argument
Reasoning and Proof Unit 2.
Evaluation Questions Whether inductive arguments for God’s existence are persuasive. The extent to which the Kalam cosmological argument is convincing.
The Cosmological Argument
Chapter 1 Definition Theory Causality
Sec. 2.3: Apply Deductive Reasoning
Formulating a logical argument using Inductive and Deductive Reasoning
THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.
Inductive and Deductive Logic
Problems with the 4 causes & Prime Mover
Laws of Nature.
THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.
Scientific Explanation
Philosophy of Religion Arguments for the existence of God
Induction and deduction
Concise Guide to Critical Thinking
The Shaky Foundations of Science: An Overview of the Big Issues
Prediction vs. Explanation
Presentation transcript:

Scientific Explanations

Aristotle’s Explanations Aristotle’s example of an efficient cause Aristotle’s example of an efficient cause The father is uglyThe minor premiss An ugly father will have an ugly childand the major premiss guarantee The child is uglythe conclusion This is an argument This is an argument We need to rephrase this as an explanation We need to rephrase this as an explanation

Explanations Aristotle’s example as an explanation Aristotle’s example as an explanation The father is uglyThe explanantia An ugly father will have an ugly child(or the explanans) explain The child is uglythe explanandum The 1 st line describes a presupposed/known fact The 1 st line describes a presupposed/known fact The 2 nd line describes a Law of Nature The 2 nd line describes a Law of Nature

Explanations Aristotle’s example as an explanation Aristotle’s example as an explanation The father is uglyThe initial condition An ugly father will have an ugly childand a law of nature explain The child is uglythe explanandum Deductive: in the same way that Aristotle required Deductive: in the same way that Aristotle required Nomological: essentially refers to a Law of Nature Nomological: essentially refers to a Law of Nature

Deductive-Nomological Exp. Also known as the Covering Law Model Also known as the Covering Law Model C 1, C 2, C 3, …The initial conditions L 1, L 2, L 3, …and the relevant laws explain Ethe explanandum R1. R1.Explanandum must be a logical consequence of the explanans R2.Explanans must contain laws required for derivation of explanandum R3.Explanans must be capable of test by experiment or observation R4.Sentences constituting the explanans must be true

Deductive-Nomological Exp. An example with gases An example with gases P 1 = 10 kPaThe initial conditions V 1 = 1 l V 2 = ½ l P 1 V 1 = P 2 V 2 and the relevant law explain P 2 = 20 kPa the explanandum Satisfies R1 to R4 Satisfies R1 to R4

Deductive-Nomological Exp. An example with gases An example with gases Doesn’t seem to properly explain the explanandum Doesn’t seem to properly explain the explanandum Why does Why does P 1 V 1 = P 2 V 2 ? 1.This sort of question can always be asked There are always going to be facts that just are facts There are always going to be facts that just are facts That doesn’t mean that higher level explanations aren’t really explanations That doesn’t mean that higher level explanations aren’t really explanations It means that explanations suggest further enquiries It means that explanations suggest further enquiries

Deductive-Nomological Exp. An example with gases An example with gases Doesn’t seem to properly explain the explanandum Doesn’t seem to properly explain the explanandum Why does Why does P 1 V 1 = P 2 V 2 ? 2.This asks for an explanation of a general fact rather than a particular fact like the original example The DN model can handle this sort of request The DN model can handle this sort of request They are called Theoretical Explanations They are called Theoretical Explanations Explain P and V relationship in terms of molecular motion and collisions Explain P and V relationship in terms of molecular motion and collisions This is too hard, try a simpler example This is too hard, try a simpler example

Deductive-Nomological Exp. An example of theoretical explanation An example of theoretical explanation No initial conditions y = v 0,y t + ½ gt 2 Relevant laws x = v 0,x t explain A thrown body travels in a parabolathe explanandum Satisfies R1 to R4 Satisfies R1 to R4

Testing the D-N Model. Insufficiency Insufficiency The length of the shadow of the flagpole is s The sun is at an angle of  When the shadow length is s and the angle of the light is  the pole length is p The pole length is p Satisfies R1 to R4 Satisfies R1 to R4 But doesn’t look like a real explanation But doesn’t look like a real explanation

Testing the D-N Model. Insufficiency Insufficiency Fails to offer an effective cause (c.f. Aristotle) Fails to offer an effective cause (c.f. Aristotle) That’s a deliberate feature of Hempel’s D-N model That’s a deliberate feature of Hempel’s D-N model Hempel agreed with Hume that causation was a problematic notion Hempel agreed with Hume that causation was a problematic notion ‘Cause’ was only definable in terms of such notions as ‘necessity’ or ‘counterfactuality,’ ‘necessity’ in terms of ‘counterfactuality’ and ‘cause,’ etc. ‘Cause’ was only definable in terms of such notions as ‘necessity’ or ‘counterfactuality,’ ‘necessity’ in terms of ‘counterfactuality’ and ‘cause,’ etc. These definitions went in a circle – which is bad These definitions went in a circle – which is bad Therefore the concept should be avoided Therefore the concept should be avoided

Testing the D-N Model. Insufficiency Insufficiency If we think that causation isn’t illegitimate, we can add If we think that causation isn’t illegitimate, we can add R5.One of the laws in the explanans must describe a causal relationship But be careful, we don’t want to eliminate the ‘gas’ explanation for example. But be careful, we don’t want to eliminate the ‘gas’ explanation for example.

Testing the D-N Model. Non-necessity Non-necessity Henry played with Albert Albert had mumps If you play with someone with mumps you will catch mumps Henry caught mumps Seems like a good explanation Seems like a good explanation But the law statement probably isn’t true, so it fails R4 But the law statement probably isn’t true, so it fails R4

Testing the D-N Model. Non-necessity Non-necessity 1.Heroic Denial The mumps explanation really isn’t an explanation The mumps explanation really isn’t an explanation An explanation would tell you why some people who play with people who have mumps get mumps, and some people don’t An explanation would tell you why some people who play with people who have mumps get mumps, and some people don’t This seems an excessive requirement This seems an excessive requirement

Testing the D-N Model. Non-necessity Non-necessity 2.Inductive-Statistical Explanations Allow Natural Laws to be probabilistic Allow Natural Laws to be probabilistic Henry played with Albertthe initial conditions Albert had mumps If you play with someone with and the relevant mumps you are very likely probabilistic law to catch mumps make likely Henry caught mumpsthe explanandum

Testing the D-N Model. Non-necessity Non-necessity 2.Inductive-Statistical Explanations Allow Natural Laws to be probabilistic Allow Natural Laws to be probabilistic This is no longer deductive – it’s inductive This is no longer deductive – it’s inductive And the regularity is not a universal law but a statistical claim And the regularity is not a universal law but a statistical claim The degree of probability required then becomes a problem The degree of probability required then becomes a problem Cigarettes make cancer more likely, but still not very likely Cigarettes make cancer more likely, but still not very likely