|
22353
|
One view says objectivity is making a successful claim which captures the facts [Reiss/Sprenger]
|
|
Full Idea:
One conception of objectivity is that the facts are 'out there', and it is the task of scientists to discover, analyze and sytematize them. 'Objective' is a success word: if a claim is objective, it successfully captures some feature of the world.
|
|
From:
Reiss,J/Spreger,J (Scientific Objectivity [2014], 2)
|
|
A reaction:
This seems to describe truth, rather than objectivity. You can establish accurate facts by subjective means. You can be fairly objective but miss the facts. Objectivity is a mode of thought, not a link to reality.
|
|
22356
|
An absolute scientific picture of reality must not involve sense experience, which is perspectival [Reiss/Sprenger]
|
|
Full Idea:
Sense experience is necessarily perspectival, so to the extent to which scientific theories are to track the absolute conception [of reality], they must describe a world different from sense experience.
|
|
From:
Reiss,J/Spreger,J (Scientific Objectivity [2014], 2.3)
|
|
A reaction:
This is a beautifully simple and interesting point. Even when you are looking at a tree, to grasp its full reality you probably need to close your eyes (which is bad news for artists).
|
|
22359
|
Topic and application involve values, but can evidence and theory choice avoid them? [Reiss/Sprenger]
|
|
Full Idea:
There may be values involved in the choice of a research problem, the gathering of evidence, the acceptance of a theory, and the application of results. ...The first and fourth do involve values, but what of the second and third?
|
|
From:
Reiss,J/Spreger,J (Scientific Objectivity [2014], 3.1)
|
|
A reaction:
[compressed] My own view is that the danger of hidden distorting values has to be recognised, but it is then possible, by honest self-criticism, to reduce them to near zero. Sociological enquiry is different, of course.
|
|
22360
|
The Value-Free Ideal in science avoids contextual values, but embraces epistemic values [Reiss/Sprenger]
|
|
Full Idea:
According to the Value-Free Ideal, scientific objectivity is characterised by absence of contextual values and by exclusive commitment to epistemic values in scientific reasoning.
|
|
From:
Reiss,J/Spreger,J (Scientific Objectivity [2014], 3.1)
|
|
A reaction:
This seems appealing, because it concedes that we cannot be value-free, without suggesting that we are unavoidably swamped by values. The obvious question is whether the two types of value can be sharply distinguished.
|
|
22362
|
Value-free science needs impartial evaluation, theories asserting facts, and right motivation [Reiss/Sprenger]
|
|
Full Idea:
Three components of value-free science are Impartiality (appraising theories only by epistemic scientific standards), Neutrality (the theories make no value statements), and Autonomy (the theory is motivated only by science).
|
|
From:
Reiss,J/Spreger,J (Scientific Objectivity [2014], 3.3)
|
|
A reaction:
[They are summarising Hugh Lacey, 1999, 2002] I'm not sure why the third criterion matters, if the first two are met. If a tobacco company commissions research on cigarettes, that doesn't necessarily make the findings false or prejudiced.
|
|
22364
|
Thermometers depend on the substance used, and none of them are perfect [Reiss/Sprenger]
|
|
Full Idea:
Thermometers assume the length of the fluid or gas is a function of temperature, and different substances yield different results. It was decided that different thermometers using the same substance should match, and air was the best, but not perfect.
|
|
From:
Reiss,J/Spreger,J (Scientific Objectivity [2014], 4.1)
|
|
A reaction:
[summarising Hasok Chang's research] This is a salutary warning that instruments do not necessarily solve the problem of objectivity, though thermometers do seem to be impersonal, and offer relative accuracy (i.e. ranking temperatures). Cf breathalysers.
|
|
18767
|
Free logics has terms that do not designate real things, and even empty domains [Anderson,CA]
|
|
Full Idea:
Free logics say 1) singular terms are allowed that do not designate anything that exists; sometimes 2) is added: the domain of discourse is allowed to be empty. Logics with both conditions are called 'universally free logics'.
|
|
From:
C. Anthony Anderson (Identity and Existence in Logic [2014], 2.3)
|
|
A reaction:
I really like the sound of this, and aim to investigate it. Karel Lambert's writings are the starting point. Maybe the domain of logic is our concepts, rather than things in the world, in which case free logic sounds fine.
|
|
18771
|
Stop calling ∃ the 'existential' quantifier, read it as 'there is...', and range over all entities [Anderson,CA]
|
|
Full Idea:
Ontological quantifiers might just as well range over all the entities needed for the semantics. ...The minimal way would be to just stop calling '∃' an 'existential quantifier', and always read it as 'there is...' rather than 'there exists...'.
|
|
From:
C. Anthony Anderson (Identity and Existence in Logic [2014], 2.6)
|
|
A reaction:
There is no right answer here, but it seems to be the strategy adopted by most logicians, and the majority of modern metaphysicians. They just allow abstracta, and even fictions, to 'exist', while not being fussy what it means. Big mistake!
|
|
18768
|
We cannot pick out a thing and deny its existence, but we can say a concept doesn't correspond [Anderson,CA]
|
|
Full Idea:
Parmenides was correct - one cannot speak of that which is not, even to say that it is not. But one can speak of concepts and say of them that they do not correspond to anything real.
|
|
From:
C. Anthony Anderson (Identity and Existence in Logic [2014], 2.5)
|
|
A reaction:
[This summarises Alonso Church, who was developing Frege] This sounds like the right thing to say about non-existence, but then the same principle must apply to assertions of existence, which will also be about concepts and not things.
|
|
18765
|
Individuation was a problem for medievals, then Leibniz, then Frege, then Wittgenstein (somewhat) [Anderson,CA]
|
|
Full Idea:
The medieval philosophers and then Leibniz were keen on finding 'principles of individuation', and the idea appears again in Frege, to be taken up in some respects by Wittgenstein.
|
|
From:
C. Anthony Anderson (Identity and Existence in Logic [2014], 1.6)
|
|
A reaction:
I take a rather empirical approach to this supposed problem, and suggest we break 'individuation' down into its component parts, and then just drop the word. Discussions of principles of individuations strike me as muddled. Wiggins and Lowe today.
|
|
18764
|
The notion of 'property' is unclear for a logical version of the Identity of Indiscernibles [Anderson,CA]
|
|
Full Idea:
In the Identity of Indiscernibles, one speaks about properties, and the notion of a property is by no means clearly fixed and formalized in modern symbolic logic.
|
|
From:
C. Anthony Anderson (Identity and Existence in Logic [2014], 1.5)
|
|
A reaction:
The unclarity of 'property' is a bee in my philosophical bonnet, in speech, and in metaphysics, as well as in logic. It may well be the central problem in our attempts to understand the world in general terms. He cites intensional logic as promising.
|
|
22357
|
The 'experimenter's regress' says success needs reliability, which is only tested by success [Reiss/Sprenger]
|
|
Full Idea:
The 'experimenter's regress' says that to know whether a result is correct, one needs to know whether the apparatus is reliable. But one doesn't know whether the apparatus is reliable unless one knows that it produces correct results ...and so on.
|
|
From:
Reiss,J/Spreger,J (Scientific Objectivity [2014], 2.3)
|
|
A reaction:
[H. Collins (1985), a sociologist] I take this to be a case of the triumphant discovery of a vicious circle which destroys all knowledge turning out to be a benign circle. We build up a coherent relationship between reliable results and good apparatus.
|
|
6755
|
For Hempel, explanations are deductive-nomological or probabilistic-statistical [Hempel, by Bird]
|
|
Full Idea:
Hempel proposes that explanations involve covering laws and antecedent conditions; this view (the 'covering law' view) has two versions, the deductive-nomological model and the probabilistic-statistical model of explanation.
|
|
From:
report of Carl Hempel (Aspects of Scientific Explanation [1965]) by Alexander Bird - Philosophy of Science Ch.2
|
|
A reaction:
The obvious problem with this approach, it seem to me, is that the laws themselves need explanation, and I don't see how a law can be foundational unless there is a divine law-giver. Are the laws arbitrary and axiomatic?
|