HU3700: Study Questions for Exam 1
Define, Explain, Describe, Identify
a posteriori knowledge
a priori knowledge
abduction
analysis (of an
argument)
analytic statement
argument
auxiliary hypothesis
background knowledge
Bacon, Francis
Baconian induction
causation
circular reasoning
confirmation
conjecture
constant conjunction of
events
context of discovery
context of justification
deductive argument
degree (of falsifiability)
dissolve (a problem)
Duhem problem
empiricism
epistemology
existential statement
falsifiable
falsificationism
Hume, David
hypothesis
induction
inductive argument
inductivism
invalid argument
logic
metaphysics
naïve inductivism
“New Riddle of
Induction”
observation
phenomenon
Popper, Karl
Principle of Induction
Principle of the
Uniformity of Nature
probabilistic statement
problem of induction
reflective equilibrium
solve (a problem)
sophisticated
inductivism
sound argument
synthetic statement
unsound argument
valid argument
II. Discussion
1. Compare and contrast Baconian inductivism, naïve inductivism, and sophisticated inductivism. What are principal similarities and differences among them?
2. What exactly is the problem of induction? In what way does the problem constitute an objection to inductivism? Be specific.
3. Summarize three of the major attempts to solve or dissolve the problem of induction. Explain how each attempt addresses the problem, and discuss any shortcomings it may have.
4. How do falsificationists like Popper attempt to solve the problem of induction? Explain precisely how their proposed solution is supposed to work.
5. State and explain the objection to inductivism having to do with the role of background knowledge in scientific inquiry.
6. What is the "New Riddle of Induction"? What is the objection to inductivism based on it?
7. Give an example of a valid argument with clearly false premises and a clearly true conclusion. Give an example of an argument with clearly true premises and a clearly true conclusion that is invalid.
8. What is the Principle of the Uniformity of Nature? Why does Hume believe that it cannot be rationally justified? Be specific.
9. One argument against inductivism is that historically scientists have not always followed inductivist methods in forming and evaluating their hypotheses. Explain how inductivists defend themselves against this argument. What counter-reply is available to the critics of inductivism? Pay particular attention to the problem of ascertaining "good" science and how the notion of "reflective equilibrium" enters into the debate.
10. One argument against inductivism is that it does not adequately account for the role of background knowledge in designing experiments and gathering data. What is the basis for this allegation? Give some examples of the kinds of background knowledge that inductivism allegedly leaves out of the picture. Be specific.
11. Explain Popper's distinction between the context of discovery and the context of justification. Why is this distinction crucial in Popper's falsificationist views about the scientific method?
12. How do falsificationists distinguish between scientific hypotheses and unscientific/pseudoscientific hypotheses? Explain how a scientific hypothesis can be both true and falsifiable. Be specific.
13. According to falsificationists, how do scientists come up with their hypotheses? How does their view about the discovery of hypotheses differ from that of naïve inductivism? Be specific.
14. What is the falsificationist view about degrees of falsifiability? According to their view, how can one scientific hypothesis be more falsifiable than another? Be specific. What role does this play in their views about the scientific method? What are the main objections to their view?
15. What exactly is the Duhem problem? What exactly is the objection to falsificationism that is based on the Duhem problem? Be specific
16. One argument against falsificationism is that some legitimate scientific statements are apparently not falsifiable. What sorts of scientific statements are alleged to be unfalsifiable?
17. One argument against falsificationism is that it is inconsistent with the fact that we often rely on the truth of scientific statements in significant practical ways. Explain this objection. How would our practical reliance on the truth of scientific statements conflict with falsificationism? What aspects of falsificationism allegedly conflict with our reliance on scientific claims? Be specific.
18. One argument against falsificationism is that it is inconsistent with the history of science. Explain this objection. How exactly does past science allegedly conflict with falsificationism? What aspects of falsificationism allegedly conflict with the history of science? Be specific.