p160 hempelhume
TRANSCRIPT
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Strategy for theorizing & testing
Role of deduction
Role of induction
Problem of induction
Strategy for theorizing & testing
Role of deduction
Role of induction
Problem of induction
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
SENTENCES IN SCIENTIFIC THEORIES SENTENCES IN SCIENTIFIC THEORIES
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
SENTENCES DESCRIBING EXPERIENCESENTENCES DESCRIBING EXPERIENCE
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
True assumptionsguarantee
true conclusion.
True assumptionsguarantee
true conclusion.
DEDUCTIVE LOGICDEDUCTIVE LOGIC
1.All men are mortal.
2.Socrates is a man.
Socrates is mortal.
1.All men are mortal.
2.Socrates is a man.
Socrates is mortal.
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
True assumptions support (not
guarantee) true conclusion.
True assumptions support (not
guarantee) true conclusion.
INDUCTIVE LOGICINDUCTIVE LOGIC
1.Frog 1 died at time t1.
2.Frog 2 died at time t2.
3.Frog 3 died at time t3.
n. Frog n died at time tn.
All frogs are mortal.
1.Frog 1 died at time t1.
2.Frog 2 died at time t2.
3.Frog 3 died at time t3.
n. Frog n died at time tn.
All frogs are mortal.
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
STRATEGY:STRATEGY:
• Identify phenomenon to explain (childbed fever).
• Find similar settings, one with the phenomenon, the other without.
• Identify phenomenon to explain (childbed fever).
• Find similar settings, one with the phenomenon, the other without.
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
STRATEGY:STRATEGY:
• Identify phenomenon to explain (childbed fever).
• Find similar settings, one with the phenomenon, the other without.
• Identify differences between settings.
• Test to see which differences are relevant to the phenomenon.
• Identify phenomenon to explain (childbed fever).
• Find similar settings, one with the phenomenon, the other without.
• Identify differences between settings.
• Test to see which differences are relevant to the phenomenon.
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Find the difference between wards that explains higher rate of childbed fever in 1st division ward.
Find the difference between wards that explains higher rate of childbed fever in 1st division ward.
Test: changing the difference lowers rate of childbed fever in 1st division ward.
Test: changing the difference lowers rate of childbed fever in 1st division ward.
STRATEGY:STRATEGY:
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Deductive ArgumentDeductive Argument
1. If “priest-terror” causes childbed fever, rerouting priest/removing bell will lower childbed fever rate.
2. Rerouting priest/removing bell does not lower childbed fever rate.
“Priest-terror” does not cause childbed fever.
1. If “priest-terror” causes childbed fever, rerouting priest/removing bell will lower childbed fever rate.
2. Rerouting priest/removing bell does not lower childbed fever rate.
“Priest-terror” does not cause childbed fever.
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
1. If delivering on back causes childbed fever, switching to lateral deliveries will lower childbed fever rate.
2. Switching to lateral deliveries does not lower childbed fever rate.
Delivering on back does not cause childbed fever.
1. If delivering on back causes childbed fever, switching to lateral deliveries will lower childbed fever rate.
2. Switching to lateral deliveries does not lower childbed fever rate.
Delivering on back does not cause childbed fever.Deductive ArgumentDeductive Argument
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Inductive ArgumentInductive Argument
1. Much higher rates of childbed fever in wards attended by physicians and medical students than in wards attended by midwives.
Childbed fever must be caused by something physicians and medical students (but not midwives) are exposed to.
1. Much higher rates of childbed fever in wards attended by physicians and medical students than in wards attended by midwives.
Childbed fever must be caused by something physicians and medical students (but not midwives) are exposed to.
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Inductive ArgumentInductive Argument
1. Childbed fever caused by something physicians and medical students (but not midwives) are exposed to.
2. Physicians and medical students (but not midwives) do autopsies.
3. Kolletschka got childbed fever after an autopsy.
Childbed fever must be caused by something physicians and medical students (but not midwives) are exposed to in autopsies (“cadaveric matter”).
1. Childbed fever caused by something physicians and medical students (but not midwives) are exposed to.
2. Physicians and medical students (but not midwives) do autopsies.
3. Kolletschka got childbed fever after an autopsy.
Childbed fever must be caused by something physicians and medical students (but not midwives) are exposed to in autopsies (“cadaveric matter”).
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Inductive ArgumentInductive Argument
1. Physicians and medical students pick up cadaveric matter from autopsies.
2. If hands and instruments are washed with chlorinated lime, removes or destroys cadaveric matter.
3. When physicians and medical students wash with chlorinated lime, childbed fever rate in 1st division ward declines.
Cadaveric matter causes childbed fever.
1. Physicians and medical students pick up cadaveric matter from autopsies.
2. If hands and instruments are washed with chlorinated lime, removes or destroys cadaveric matter.
3. When physicians and medical students wash with chlorinated lime, childbed fever rate in 1st division ward declines.
Cadaveric matter causes childbed fever.
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Big AssumptionsBig Assumptions
• Cadaveric matter exists, transmitted from autopsies.
• Chlorinated lime removes or destroys cadaveric matter.
• Cadaveric matter exists, transmitted from autopsies.
• Chlorinated lime removes or destroys cadaveric matter.No one observed cadaveric matter!No one observed cadaveric matter!
1. Physicians and medical students pick up cadaveric matter from autopsies.
2. If hands and instruments are washed with chlorinated lime, removes or destroys cadaveric matter.
3. When physicians and medical students wash with chlorinated lime, childbed fever rate in 1st division ward declines.
Cadaveric matter causes childbed fever.
1. Physicians and medical students pick up cadaveric matter from autopsies.
2. If hands and instruments are washed with chlorinated lime, removes or destroys cadaveric matter.
3. When physicians and medical students wash with chlorinated lime, childbed fever rate in 1st division ward declines.
Cadaveric matter causes childbed fever.
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Inductive Argument =premises support
conclusion
Inductive Argument =premises support
conclusion
Change that affects outcome.Change that affects outcome.
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Did Semmelweis prove his conclusion?Did Semmelweis prove his conclusion?
1. If H is true, then so is I.2. (As the evidence shows) I is true.
H is true.
1. If H is true, then so is I.2. (As the evidence shows) I is true.
H is true.
“fallacy of affirming the consequent”“fallacy of affirming the consequent”
True premises don’t guarantee a true conclusion. (There might be another reason I is true!)
True premises don’t guarantee a true conclusion. (There might be another reason I is true!)
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
1. If cadaveric matter causes childbed fever, then removing/destroying it by washing with chlorinated lime will reduce rate of childbed fever.
2. (As the evidence shows) washing with chlorinated lime reduces rate of childbed fever.
Cadaveric matter causes childbed fever.
1. If cadaveric matter causes childbed fever, then removing/destroying it by washing with chlorinated lime will reduce rate of childbed fever.
2. (As the evidence shows) washing with chlorinated lime reduces rate of childbed fever.
Cadaveric matter causes childbed fever.
Did Semmelweis prove his conclusion?Did Semmelweis prove his conclusion?“fallacy of affirming the consequent”“fallacy of affirming the consequent”
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Semmelweis used his observations to find the relevant difference.
His theory led to an effective intervention.
But, the data didn’t prove his conclusion.
Semmelweis used his observations to find the relevant difference.
His theory led to an effective intervention.
But, the data didn’t prove his conclusion.
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Where’s the deduction?
Where’s the deduction?
1. If H is true, then so is I.2. (As the evidence shows) I is
false. H is false.
1. If H is true, then so is I.2. (As the evidence shows) I is
false. H is false.
Ruling out potential causes.Ruling out potential causes.
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
1. If “priest-terror” causes childbed fever, rerouting priest/removing bell will lower childbed fever rate.
2. Rerouting priest/removing bell does not lower childbed fever rate.
“Priest-terror” does not cause childbed fever.
1. If “priest-terror” causes childbed fever, rerouting priest/removing bell will lower childbed fever rate.
2. Rerouting priest/removing bell does not lower childbed fever rate.
“Priest-terror” does not cause childbed fever.
Where’s the deduction?
Where’s the deduction?Ruling out potential
causes.Ruling out potential causes.
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
What’s wrong with induction?What’s wrong with induction?
Supporting potential causes of childbed fever.
Supporting potential causes of childbed fever.1. If H is true, then so is I.2. (As the evidence shows) I is
true. H is true.
1. If H is true, then so is I.2. (As the evidence shows) I is
true. H is true.
“fallacy of affirming the consequent”“fallacy of affirming the consequent”
Where’s the induction?
Where’s the induction?
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
All knowledge through experience.All knowledge through experience.
Empiricism:Empiricism:
(Anything I know has backing in empirical data.)
(Anything I know has backing in empirical data.)
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160PHIL 160
Can’t get empirical data about things you haven’t observed!
Can’t get empirical data about things you haven’t observed!
Problem of induction:Problem of induction:
Can’t be certain things you haven’t observed will be like things you have observed!
Can’t be certain things you haven’t observed will be like things you have observed!