-Science explains a fact by putting it in a general law, with specific conditions... Therefore, science uses deduction. Every fact is explained by being from a general law. The scientist devises concepts to describe certain things, while also supplying certain laws, which allow us to make inferences about what we want to explain.
2. What are some common misconceptions about scientific explanations? How does Abel refute each one?
-It is sometimes said that science describes, rather than explains: He says theres is no sharp line that can be drawn between description and explanation. He says that if scientific explanations of why the pond froze and why there was an eclipse are only descriptions, then what would an explanation be?
-It is sometimes said that science explains the strange by the familiar: He says it is usually the opposite, because familiar concepts are usually explained by unfamiliar concepts.
-Scientific explanation is not the same as understanding in the sense in which it is said. He specifically talks about men who say they can understand women. However, he says that this understanding relates more to knowledge by acquaintance than a science.
-A scientific explanation need not be a casual law: He says that it may be a law of simultaneous existence rather than succession. (I don't understand this one at all.)
3. What does Abel mean when he says: "a law in turn may be explained by another law of wider scope; the greater the generality, the better the explanation." (93)
-He means that everything must be explained by means of a law. If there is a law with a lot of room for leeway then it means that the explanation will be better because there is a lot to the explanation. This probably doesn't make sense, but its like... you have more things to choose from when the law is bigger, to better hep explain your law.
4. What does Abel mean when he says: "Explanation is always relative to a given knowledge situation; you must stop somewhere." (94)
-He means that you can't just go on with a long explanation when there is no need for one. For instance if someone ask where Sturgis is, you could tell them that its on main street in Hyannis, and they would probably find it. There would be no need for the longitudinal and latitudinal directions, although this further explains where it is.
5. Why are explanatory reductions "economical ways of describing phenomena." (95)
-Because they don't eliminate entities or events from happening in the world, everything that once was happening is still happening. The explanation behind it is the only thing that changes. For instance, when we talked about how the things we touched we weren't really touching, it didn't change anything as to what was happening... instead, it just changed the reason as to what was happening when we touched stuff.
6. Why does scientific explanation require the concept of system?
-Because a system is a whole which determines the operation of its parts... scientific explanations require the operation of certain things to be explained. It can't just be said that there are these molecules, and they make up DNA... the process of DNA must be described so that a person can understand it.
7. Why is the theory of emergence used to explain how anything new came into the world? What counter-claim does Abel provide?
-It is used because it is proposed to remedy the inability of the metaphysics of mechanism. He says that there is no reason why there has to be "logically unpredictable qualities."
8. Why is theory and observation interdependent in scientific explanation?
-Because somebody might argue that they saw different things since theories can interact with the observations which they are based. However, all theories function within the same realm of possible human experience... and therefore they must touch.
9, Why is explanation in science theoretically identical to prediction? How does Abel feel about this?
- Because you know you have explained the last event that occurred "satisfactorily" if you can predict the next one. However, Abel says that a good explanation doesn't always need to have a prediction. He uses the example of drinking coffee. He says that you could explain the reason for staying up late the previous night is due to drinking coffee, however you can not say that coffee is going to make you stay up late again tonight just because it did last night.
10.What does Abel mean when he says: "The growth of science is not a clear-cut, straightforward progression toward a unique, all-inclusive final truth." (100)
-He says this because there are many variables that are involved in science, that could change anything at anytime. Also the events that are occurring in the world at a give time could influence what the scientist decides to study, because he needs to study things that are relevant to current events.
11. According to Abel, what situations are seen by scientists as requiring explanation?
-The information about biological survival in the past. (I think, I'm not positive...)
12. What is the role of the human element in the progress of scientific explanation?
-The scientist has to choose what problem he wants to focus on studying. Also, the way in which a scientist discovers or comes about his new hypothesis also plays a role in scientific explanation. Also, there are extrascienfitic influences, which involved the conclusions that the scientist makes.
13. Abel claims that "Our perceptual knowledge is delimited by our characteristic biological capacities, and there are limits to the completeness of our theoretical structures. But our observations and our theories mutually reinforce each other. The structure of our science is pragmatically justified; it is the most reliable knowledge there is." (105) Does this hold true in history as well?
-I think that the first sentence of this quote is completely true. It reminds me of the checks lab we did when we started learning about history. The facts that we didn't think fit with our explanation, we just sort of threw away. This was because of our biological capacities. It was completely possible that the animals on the checks were important, however because of our biological capacity, and the way we have been taught, we didn't find it important so we threw the information away. Also, history is somewhat justified by the artifacts that we gather from the past... but I wouldn't say it is like a science in that aspect. There are way too many biases involved with history that come into play when studying it to claim that it is reliable. Although there are biases in experiments as well, there are ways of getting around the biases, whereas there isn't a way of getting around them in history. The facts are there, you gather them and interpret them how you feel fit to... you can't control that.
14. In bullet form, and using information from this chapter and chapter 15, please list the similarities and differences between scientific and historical explanations.
-Similarities:
-in science, there is no way of being certain that a person has controlled for all extraneous variables. in history, there is no way of being certain that a person has accounted for all the important information... that they haven't left anything out.
-in science and history, people have to decide on the relevant information that they choose to account for.
-there are facts in each.
-some sciences can have biases, just like history is biased.
-they are both interpretations of events.
-Differences:
-in science, the information that is being gathered is something that is able to be seen right in front of you, whereas with history it is information of the past.
-in science, you are able to falsify things, however you can't really do that in history. in history, you can say that you don't think something happened, but there is no way of being completely certain, because only the important things are recorded in history.
Excellent work - this should really help you with your Outline.
ReplyDelete25/25