B&LdeJ1 Theoretical Issues in Psychology Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Mind for Psychologists

B&LdeJ2 Aims of the book  Review of basic ideas and problems in philosophy of science and philosophy of mind, relevant for psychologists.  Psychology as science of mind: what is science?  Chapters 1–5. what is mind?  Chapters 6–10.

B&LdeJ3 Chapter 1 Science: why and how? Why science? Knowledge Arguments Laws, theories, models and causes

B&LdeJ4 Why and how? Demarcating science: science as arbiter of objectivity and truth; demarcating science from pseudoscience; science as safeguard against propaganda and superstition. Objectivity vs subjectivity or human construction: realism, foundationalism, objectivism (positivism Ch. 3). relativism (social constructionism, sociology of science Ch. 4 and 5). But what defines science?

B&LdeJ5 What defines science? Reduction: underlying causal structure explains macro-phenomena; this research produces … Unification; and promotes … Systematicity. Critical attitude: against authority and dogma; inspires freedom of thought, advances enlightenment and … Open-mindedness.

B&LdeJ6 Theories of truth Traditional theories of truth: Correspondence theory of truth Coherence theory of truth ‘Recent’ theories of truth: Consensus theory of truth Pragmatic theory of truth

Correspondence theory: a statement or belief is ‘true’ if it corresponds with a situation, an event or an object in reality, or in the world (realism – objectivism) ‘There is a cat on the mat!’ => correspondence

Coherence theory: a statement or belief is called ‘true’ if it is coherent with other beliefs (knowledge) that one has (idealism / relativism) ‘There is a cat!’ ‘A cat is a mammal of the genus Felix; a pet animal, with a soft skin, that likes to be carressed etc., etc.’ coherent with

Consensus theory: ‘truth’ is a social or cultural consent or approval (relativism / social-constructionism) Pragmatic theory: a belief or theory is ‘true’ or reliable if it has success in practice; if it can be established by experience (experiments) ‘Recent’ theories of truth

B&LdeJ10 Realism: Realism: world exists knower-independent; world exists knower-independent; world is primary; world is primary; knowledge pictures the objective world (representing); knowledge pictures the objective world (representing); truth is correspondence between knowledge and world. truth is correspondence between knowledge and world. Relativism (an extreme version: Idealism): Relativism (an extreme version: Idealism): world is (partly) constructed by the knower (subject); world is (partly) constructed by the knower (subject); subject is primary; subject is primary; knowing is constructing; knowing is constructing; truth is coherence with the rest of knowledge, or consensus. truth is coherence with the rest of knowledge, or consensus. Pragmatism: knowledge is functional and active, coping with the world; knowledge is functional and active, coping with the world; truth is practically, experientially successful. truth is practically, experientially successful. Views on world & knowledge

B&LdeJ11 A problem for realism: ‘God’s eye view’ How to compare the world with a theory, since one can never get outside one’s theory (opinion)? Irony: only in ‘God’s eye’ can correspondence be assessed. World Theory OK ! correspondence

B&LdeJ12 Pragmatic realism Hillary Putnam (‘pragmatic realism’): ‘the mind and the world jointly make up the mind and the world’ (cf. Kant) World features Categories, interests ‘World’

B&LdeJ13 Everyday knowledge and science Conclusion: different perspectives, both real Eddington’s ‘Two Tables’: molecules, empty, weightless, colorless; visible, solid, colored everyday object. What is the real table? Everyday world as illusion? Everyday knowledge and scientific knowledge: ‘manifest’ vs ‘scientific image’ (Sellars); i.e. visible vs underlying, explanatory image (bv. water – H 2 O; depression – dopamine)

B&LdeJ14 Characteristics of science 1.Systematicity: a coherent system of theories, statements, formulae etc. 2. Well-defined methods: methods specify what counts as legitimate problems, facts, solutions, etc. 3.Reduction: phenomena (or theories) are explained by underlying lower-level mechanisms (or laws). 4. Objectivity: in the sense of being controllable, reliable and inter-subjectively observable. 5. Clarity: scientific statements are phrased unambiguously, in principle addressed to the public domain. 6. Revisability: scientific knowledge is open, revisable at all times and never definitive.

B&LdeJ15 Induction, deduction, abduction Induction: from individual observations to general statements. No logical certainty, but new knowledge. Example: Lots of swans were observed; all were white. Maybe all swans are white. Deduction: from general statements to individual. Logical certainty: conclusion contained in premises, but no new knowledge. Example: All humans are mortal. Socrates is human. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. Abduction: inference to the best explanation. No logical certainty, new hypothetical knowledge about causes Example:All CJD patients ate beef. Beef may be the cause of CJD.

B&LdeJ16 The problem of induction Every generalisation can be disconfirmed by an unexpected observation (‘black swan’). Confirmation cannot, unlike deduction, be formalised; no logical certainty. Inducing requires classification; one has to start with concepts and criteria (e.g. for similarity).

B&LdeJ17 Facts and theories Facts: no such thing as pure observation; theory influences observation – ‘theory-ladenness’ Theory (coherent set of statements) indispensable: standard terms for description; coherent, unifying; ‘unobservable’ scientific concepts (e.g., energy, IQ) connected to observations by theory. Strict distinction between fact and theory impossible; hierarchy from factual to theoretical.

B&LdeJ18 ‘Justification’ vs ‘discovery’ Context of justification : normative, focus on method; prescribing criteria for holding a theory true, acceptable or justified, logically or empirically (  positivism). Context of discovery : description of the historical, social and psychological circumstances and influences that were relevant to the invention or discovery of scientific theories: who, where and when? (  more or less relativistic views of science).