Skip to content
Permalink
main
Switch branches/tags
Go to file
 
 
Cannot retrieve contributors at this time
88 lines (64 sloc) 2.02 KB
aliases redirect_from
index
/logic
/phil-of-science
/philosophy-of-science
/logic-and-philosophy-of-science

Notes from Logic and Philosophy of Science I

Everyone of the topics below is summarized in the [[Supersummary of Logic and Philosophy of Science I|course's Supersummary]]. {:.box}



Course introduction

[[Introduction to Logic and Philosophy of Science I]]


The Scientific method

  1. [[Aristotelian logic]]
  2. [[Francis Bacon]]
  3. [[Hume in Logic and Philosophy of Science I]]
  4. [[Bertrand Russel]]
  5. [[Pragmatic Justification]] (Hans Reichenbach)
  6. [[Logical Positivism]]
    • [[Alfred Jules Ayer]]
  7. [[Peter Frederick Strawson]]
  8. [[Karl Popper]]
  9. [[Post-Popperian interpretations]]
    1. [[Logical objections to Popper]]
    2. [[Historical objections to Popper]]
      1. [[Imre Lakatos]]
      2. [[Thomas Kuhn]]
    3. Methodological objections to Popper
      1. [[Paul Feyerabend]]

The scientific explanation

  1. [[Introduction to Scientific explanation]] +++
  2. [[Carl Hempel]] (The Deductive-nomological model)
  3. [[Nancy Cartwright]]
  4. [[Truth of scientific laws]]
  5. [[Testing the hypotheses]]

Natural kinds

  • A premise on [[Modal Logic]]
  • [[Natural kinds]]

Social kinds



Exam

  • 3 questions in 2h
  • average answer is between 500-800 words

Answering the questions

  • questions will be actual questions, not descriptive, specific
  • planning the answers
  • decide whether what's valuable to include or not, add enough content and background knowledge to make the argument valuable
  • the answer has to be structured and it must follow a path, consequential steps of reasoning
  • personal opinions are welcome if argumented

Evaluation criteria

  • understanding
  • argument
  • organization
  • clarity

Examples

Does inventing hypotheses rely on logic in science?

Is Popper's logical criterion of falsification a convincing response to Hume's problem of induction?