Phil 160

Fall 2004

Midterm Exam Review Sheet

Important concepts and terminology:

theory

empiricism

rationalism

metaphysics

epistemology

analytic vs. synthetic statements

verifiability theory of meaning

deductive reasoning

inductive reasoning

the problem of induction

the narrow inductivist view of scientific inquiry

underdetermination

holism about testing

meaning holism

falsification

confirmation vs. corroboration

conjecture and refutation

"empirical content" or "observational consequences"

paradigm

normal science

puzzle-solving

anomaly

crisis

revolution

incommensurability

scientific progress

progressive vs. degenerating research programs

acceptance vs. pursuit of theories

principle of tenacity

principle of proliferation

Questions about the reading (for material which is fair game for the midterm):

·      What does Feigl identify as "the virtues characteristic of science"?  How does he think adopting these virtues in philosophy might result in more meaningful philosophical questions and answers?

·      Consider the claim, "All emeralds are green."  According to Hempel, is a claim like this testable?  (If so, describe the testing procedure.  If not, explain why not.)  What would he say about whether this claim could be conclusively established?

·      Explain why Popper thinks the problem of induction isn't a problem for the scientific method.

·      What does Duhem say about our ability to test hypotheses against experiments?

·      What role does Kuhn think a paradigm plays in a normal science tradition?

·      What does Kuhn identify as the key features of "puzzles"?  How do features like these help organize the "puzzle-solving" work of scientific research? 

·      Explain why Kuhn thinks unsolved puzzles don't automatically lead to a change in scientific theory.

·      What factors does Kuhn say scientists consider when choosing between paradigms?

·      On p. 111, Kuhn writes, "... after a revolution scientists are responding to a different world."  What does he mean by this?  How does this relate to the inverting lenses experiment discussed on p. 112?

Sample midterm questions:

True or False:

1. Quine claims that it is possible to maintain a hypothesis in the face of any possible experimental finding, provided you are willing to change enough of the other beliefs in your web of knowledge.                              TRUE            FALSE
2. Lakatos claims that a scientist is committed to try to falsify all the hypotheses of her theory.                                                                         TRUE            FALSE
3. The logical empiricists claimed that for a statement to be meaningful, it must be easy to verify it decisively.                                                   TRUE            FALSE

Fill in the blank:

1.        Lakatos claims that the basic unit of scientific achievement is the ______________________, which consists of a hard core and a protective belt.	research program
2.        ________________ claims that every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it.	synthetic
3.        When testing hypotheses, Duhem says it is not possible to conduct a(n) ______________________, since we can never be sure we have listed all the possibilities.	analytic puzzle solving
4.        Kuhn characterizes the activity of normal science as ____________________________ .	experimentation theoretical
5.        A(n) _________________________ claim is one that is true or false just in virtue of the meanings of the terms in it rather than due to additional facts about the world.	Popper Kuhn

Multiple choice:

1. Hempel criticizes the "narrow inductivist view of science on the grounds that:
1. It is not possible to collect all the facts about the world.
2. In order to collect relevant data and develop meaningful classifications, scientists must be guided by working hypotheses.
3. Induction is not an automatic process for generating generalizations from empirical data.
4. All of the above.
5. None of the above.

2. Popper's response to the problem of induction is:
1. It makes it impossible for us to learn anything from experiments.
2. It presents no challenge to science because inductive logic is just as trustworthy as deductive logic.
3. It presents no challenge to science because theory and experiment are unrelated.
4. Presents no challenge to science because ruling out a theory which makes a prediction that differs from the observed outcome relies on deductive logic.

Short answers (1 sentence):

1. Define "falsifiability".
2. Define "normal science".
3. Define "degenerating research program".
4. Describe the sort of information contained in a theory.

Medium answers (1 paragraph):

1. Briefly explain what Popper thinks defines a science.
2. Explain, using Lakatos' model of science, the difference between the "hard core" of a theory and the "protective belt" of auxiliary hypotheses.
3. What is the problem of induction?  Illustrate with a specific example.
4. According to Duhem, why can't science get by on logic alone?
5. Briefly explain the main difference between what Popper views as scientific activity and the "normal science" Kuhn describes.
6. What does Popper think we can say about a hypothesis which has survived efforts to falsify it, and why?

Essay.  (Two of these questions will appear on the actual midterm.  You will get to choose which one of these to write on.):

1. Kuhn's account of science specifies that decisions between competing paradigms rest on subjective (rather than objective) factors.  Discuss how he supports this claim, and explain why this account makes it difficult to justify the claim that science makes progress
2. Kuhn's account of normal science suggests a way in which science can be expected to make progress.  Explain the sort of "progress" made in the period of normal science.  What would Popper say about whether we should really count it as scientific progress, and why?
3. What does Popper say is the distinctive scientific attitude?  What does Feyerabend say is the distinctive scientific attitude?  How would Popper criticize Feyerabend's view of science?  How would Feyerabend criticize Popper's?