Facts are needed to establish theories but theories are needed to make sense of facts

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Rocket clouds
Facts are needed to establish theories but theories are needed to make sense of facts by Mind Map: Facts are needed to establish theories but theories are needed to make sense of facts

1. Isomorphisim

2. Opinions?

2.1. Judgements, Evaluations

2.1.1. Cant falsify it. If you can falsify then its a theory. eg. Apples taste good

2.1.2. Not a fact

2.2. Can be BASED on facts and theories

2.2.1. Should be given higher priority and should be given higher importance

2.3. Elwyn brooks white: "Prejudice is a great time saver, you can form opinions without having to get facts'

3. Facts and theory at the same time?

3.1. Yes - Gravity can be observed and is also a theory. Gravitational theory explains why and how things fall into the ground

4. What are facts?

4.1. They compose theories

4.2. Sentences of idealized theories

4.3. Collection of data

4.4. Term 'fact' can be vague and can refer to data, collection of data or even theories (Quote from article)

4.5. Eg of facts: Tomorrow it will rain. - Not a theory because it cannot be proven wrong since the weather will not change.

5. What are theories?

5.1. Way of organizing facts - in order to make sense of it

5.2. Collection of facts

5.3. Connected by formal inference

5.4. Can be falsified

5.5. Expressions of human thought - imagination

5.6. thoughts of scientists trying to understand the causes of some set of phenomena.

5.7. Predict behaviour

5.8. Explanation of facts

5.9. theory» refers, not to idealized statements that we regard as facts, but to hypotheses that we might want to test

5.10. Ex. Objects fall from the groung - fact. Theory of gravitation

5.11. Theories are descriptions of sentences that we have chosen to call «facts,»

5.12. Instrumentalism

5.12.1. theories are tools or instruments identifying reliable means-end relations found in experience, but not claiming to reveal realities beyond experience

5.12.1.1. COUNTER ARGUMENT: instrumentalism is unable to account for the importance to pure science of testing severely even the most remote implications of its theories, since it is unable to account for the pure scientist's interest in truth and falsity.

5.12.2. premise 1: Theories are tools-of-the-trade of thinking, seeking to map means-ends relationships found in experience.

5.12.3. premise 2: Theories predict consequences of using means to achieve ends.

5.12.3.1. COUNTER ARGUMENT - POPPER

5.12.3.1.1. Limited capacity to generate logically true theories

5.12.3.1.2. Popper rejected inductive reasoning in favor of deductive reasoning

5.12.3.1.3. Deduction can move from a self-evident universal statement, such as "All men are mortal", to true singular statements that every individual human is mortal, because the universal statement already embraces all singulars. But there can be no principle by which a singular statement can justify a universal, because no singular statement can report observing "all" of any kind.

5.12.3.1.4. He argued that deduction could serve modern science, not by assuming general statements to be true, but by providing general statements testable by their consequences. Falsification "works" when experience contradicts a theory's predictions: "it must be possible for an empirical scientific system to be refuted by experience."

5.12.4. premise 3: Theory-development requires inductive reasoning, basing general statements on limited observations of facts-of-the-case.

5.12.5. premise 4: There are no realities behind or beyond what can be known by applying instrumental theories.

5.12.5.1. POPPER rejected premise 4 because it denies the distinction between pure and applied science. He granted that science might apply empirical or instrumental theories, but asserted that epistemological or reality-based theories, revealing truths independently of experience, are equally valid.

5.12.5.2. pure sciences such as mathematics and logic can make true statements without observing facts-of-the-case.

5.12.5.3. true theories don't require establishing facts-of-the-case; they can be conjectural myths, derived from inspiration or chance, which are "... psychologically or genetically a priori, i.e., prior to all observational experience." They can also precede observation or recognition of similarities and differences

5.12.6. Instrumentalists claim that "truth" is always situational, they forfeit their capacity to explain sciences in which the instrumental criterion of judgment cannot be applied.

5.12.7. Also called pragmatism"."experimentalism", and "instrumentalism

6. Human Sciences

6.1. Study behavioral traits shaped by environment and genes

6.2. IQ tests as measuring intelligence?

6.3. Friedman's use of instrumentalism in Economics

6.3.1. Defined economics as: a system of generalizations or conjectures that can be used to make correct predictions about the consequences of any change in circumstances.

6.3.2. Rejected premise 4: the relevant question to ask about the "assumptions" of a theory is not whether they are descriptively "realistic", for they never are, but whether they are sufficiently good approximations for the purpose in hand. And this question can be answered only seeing whether the theory works, which means whether it yields sufficiently accurate predictions.

6.3.2.1. COUNTER ARGUMENT LAWRENCE BOLAND

6.3.2.1.1. So long as a theory does its intended job there is no need to consider the truth of its assumptions. ... This view of the role of theories is called "instrumentalism". It says that theories are convenient and useful ways of (logically) generating what have turned out to be true (or successful) predictions or conclusions

6.3.3. Truly important and significant hypotheses will be found to have "assumptions" that are wildly inaccurate descriptive representations of reality, and, in general, the more significant the theory, the more unrealistic the assumptions ...[8]:14

7. First KQ: What can be considered a scientific fact ?

7.1. Impossible to know because it is subjective and changing.

8. To what extent Is scientific methodology when formulating scientific theories reliable?

8.1. Can be misleading

8.2. Correlation does not equal causation

8.2.1. Unlike causation, correlation suggests that two events or phenomena are linked only because they both share a third factor, or simply because they have happened at the same or similar time.

8.2.2. The causation of a phenomenon is what directly makes it occur.

8.3. Deduction

8.3.1. form of reasoning in which you go from a general rule to a specific rule.

8.4. A logical fallacy

8.4.1. idea or assertion that uses flawed reasoning to arrive at its conclusion. Fallacies may occur by accident, or be used by people deliberately to persuade others of the dubious truth of what they are saying.

8.5. Value bias

8.5.1. The hypothetico deductive method requires observation, formulation of hypothesis, and application of research tools, at each of these stages there is a significant potential for value biases (ie what do you choose to observe ? what do you choose to formulate as hypotheses ? which research tools do you apply ? how do you interpret your results ? – all are subject to individual biases.

8.6. Superseded or absolete theory

8.6.1. a scientific theory that was once widely accepted within the scientific community but is no longer considered to be an adequate or complete description of reality, or is considered to be simply false.

8.7. Fringe science

8.7.1. an investigation based on mainstream theories in a specific field and is considered to be questionable by the mainstream.

8.7.2. highly speculative

8.7.3. often advanced by people with no traditional academic science background, or by researchers outside the mainstream discipline

8.8. Pathological science

8.8.1. Irving Langmuir,

8.8.2. area of research where "people are tricked into false results ... by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions."

8.8.3. Extrasensory perception

8.8.4. Martian canal (turned out to be optical illusions)

8.8.5. Flying saucer (E.T.) theory

9. Natural Science

9.1. Goal: Explain the phenomena of the natural world in a objective and unbias matter.

9.1.1. People perceive and interprete reality different and to reach an objective description we need to use standardize proceders for gaining further knowledge of the world.

9.1.1.1. Scientific method tries to eliminate subjective influences and sets standard on how further knowledge should be gained

9.1.1.1.1. Observation - car doesnt work

9.1.1.1.2. Hypothesis (educated guess, there needs to be good reasoning) - miss gasoline? broken part? No because I fueled my car yesterday, No, because there are no sound, therefore it may be the battery

9.1.1.1.3. Experiment - testing the hypothesis. It will prove it right or wrong

9.1.1.1.4. Conclusion: Battery was the problem indeed. So the next time your car doesnt work the problem is the battery = creation of a theory

9.1.1.1.5. Repeat steps of the scientific method to prove theory

9.1.1.2. Problem with scientific method

9.1.1.2.1. Over generalization

9.1.1.2.2. Cyclical process - we keep on testing and retesting and when is falsified we look for a better theory.

9.1.1.2.3. Scientific method is an agreement on how further knowledge in gained. It is a structure problem solving approach but not a scientific theory itself. Cant use scientific method to prove scientific method.

9.1.1.2.4. Albert Einstein: ' When the number of factors coming into play in a phenomenological complex is too large, scientific method in most cases fails. one need only think of the wether even for a few days ahead is impossible'  - eg of when scientific method cant be applied

9.1.1.3. Falsification

9.1.1.3.1. If theory fails to make correct predictions one needs to reject it

9.1.1.3.2. Scientific theories cannot give you certainty because theories can be proven wrong (falsified)

9.1.1.3.3. Doesnt matter how many times a theory has been proved right, there will always be a chance that in the future it will be falsified

9.1.1.4. Metatheory

9.1.1.4.1. Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it.

9.1.1.4.2. Theories are descriptions of sentences that we have chosen to call «facts,»

9.1.1.5. Come from observation -> hypothesis -> experiment -> fact

9.1.2. Scientific theory

9.1.2.1. Demands creation of reality equally accessible to all observers

10. Introduction

11. The paradigma of reference of disciplines may no be congruent

11.1. When researchers, or thinkers, are developing ideas (& knowledge) within their discipline they may be using quite different frameworks (or modes of thought). The aims of the research may not be congruent. For example, biologists and psychologists studying the same behaviour may assume very different causes, their frame of reference is different.

12. To what extent can theories be created by facts based on emotion?

12.1. Eg. I love my parents/ I love ice cream - It is a statement/fact and is not a theory because it cannot be falsified (therefore is not a scientific theory however it links to the human sciences theories).

12.2. Facts in human sciences are often based on human beings who are driven by emotion

13. The consensus theory of truth

14. Different ways of creating theories

14.1. Baconian method

14.1.1. Generalization through observation (inductive reasoning)

14.2. Newton method

14.2.1. Hypothesis based on explicit and implicit nature of method and reasoning through observation

15. 2nd KQ: How reliable is inductive reasoning when formulating theories in human sciences and natural sciences?

15.1. David Hume

15.2. Assumes causality

15.3. Hypothesis are created from inductive reasoning can be expanded and information added

15.4. About observing overall PATTERN to guide towards truth

15.5. COUNTER CLAIM: Can weaken the argument since it can give evidence that go against prediction

15.6. COUNTER CLAIM: Goodman's theory - finite sequence of events or observations can always conform different patterns (which means the same facts can conform different theories which leaves us questioning the veracity of theories)

16. To what extent does empirical knowledge  play a roll when creating theories and stating facts?

16.1. Empirical knowledge is knowledge gained personally, by experiencing it for ourselves – usually through our senses. It is sometimes termed a posteriori knowledge, meaning after experience.

16.2. We create theories ourselves through different experiences that we have. E.G. Child may be scared of dogs because in the past she saw a dog bitting someone who tried to approach him, so we theorize that dogs will attack us.

16.3. Acquaintance - knowledge from personal experiene

16.4. Russel: Knowledge by description - being told by others

17. How reliable are theories in Human sciences?

17.1. Hawthorne effect

17.1.1. Study done into the Hawthorne Electrical Works in Chicago in the 1920s,

17.1.2. Phenomenon of human subjects behaving differently due to being studied by investigators.

18. Language

18.1. the method of human communication