1
Questions & Philosophizing
(Kinds, Aims, Functions)
Ulrich de Balbian
2
PREFACE
There are many different kinds of questions.
I have mentioned a few of them here-
Philosophy: Aims, Methods,
Rationale Paperback
2018
by Ulrich de Balbian (Author)
ISBN-10 : 1985719150
ISBN-13 : 978-1985719156
In this meta-philosophical study I commence with an investigation of Wisdom. I then continue with ane xploration
of the institutionalization of the subject and the professionalization of those involved in it. Thien I show that philosophizing resembles and attempts to do theorizing. The 9
questions, etc of the Socratic Method and details of the
Philosophical Toolkit occur throughout different stages of
theorizing as one level and one dimension of it. Traditional
philosophy is no longer viable, relevant and acceptable. It
might be possible to continue doing philosophizing in traditional ways. It is possible to continue fabricating fictional
realities in the manner of the Pre-Socratics, Spinoza, Leibniz, Husserl, Hegel, Plato, et al. It is possible to devise pictures of realities and depictions of human consciousness
and cognition like Descartes or in the Kantian manner.
One of the major issues with traditional philosophy is its
lack of self-awareness, the absence of meta-cognition.
This lack of meta-cognition of traditional philosophers
leads to the creation of all sorts of questionable phenomena and fake problems. Traditional philosophy, metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, ethics, philosophy of scien-
3
ces, religion, arts, etc are little more than the possibilities,
limits and restrictions enabled and allowed by the philosopher's methodology, techniques and tools. It is most likely
possible to envisage a project to devise a collection or
synthesis of many alternative realities by means of the insights and theories of theoretical physics, mathematics,
bio-chemistry, biology and other sciences, the depictions
produced by the arts and pictures of realities presented by
the humanities. If such a system of pictures of reality is
philosophically relevant and meaningful is however another matter. It is possible to continue fabricating fictional
realities in the manner of the Pre-Socratics, Spinoza, Leibniz, Husserl, Hegel, Plato, et al. It is possible to devise pictures of realities and depictions of human consciousness
and cognition like Descartes or in the Kantian manner.
Some of these questions, certain kinds of questions are relevant to philosophy, to the doing of
philosophy or philosophizing.
What are the aims of different kinds of questions?
What are their objectives and purposes?
How are their relevant to the doing of philosophy?
How are they related to philosophizing?
These are some of the topics that will be touched on, tacitly and explicitly, in this exploration.
4
I travel through the exploration of concepts and
their role in questions, how concepts can be
viewed as interconnected and being interpreted
as forming a system or set of ideas and being
employed to devise a theory, good, bad or indifferent.
5
CONTENTS
Preface
2
Contents
5
One
6
Two
21
Three
38
Four
56
Five
82
Six
94
Seven
109
Eight
117
Nine
130
APPENDIX
135
6
ONE
1
Certain kinds of questions are relevant to the beginning of explorations, investigations, research
and theorizing.
1.1
They can assist in the earlier stages of theorizing,
for example to identify, gather and obtain relevant
information or data.
1.11
Philosophizing is part of
Theorizing Paperback February 1, 2018
by Ulrich de Balbian (Author)
ISBN-10 : 1985683938
ISBN-13 : 978-1985683938
Philosophizing is part of the Process/es of TheorizingAbstract
7
An illustration (by means of a number of articles, books, opinions, statements, hypotheses, theories, arguments, reasoning and comments) of doing philosophy or philosophizing and
its methods, as aspects of the contexts, stages, steps and
features of the process/es of theorizing. The methods and
techniques of philosophizing is explored and the nature and
purpose of theories are shown. It is indicated that and how
the approaches and aims philosophizing form part of the
stages and processes of theorizing. A number of implicit assumptions and tacit pre-suppositions of this socio-cultural
practice and discourse, for example as they resemble that of
everyday and religious perception (MNC, maturationally natural& perception, cognition, and action), are identified and revealed.
1.2
Philosophy in general, or macroscopically, deals
with questions.
1.21
These questions can be stated explicitly, or they
can be broken down into smaller questions.
1.22
These smaller questions will have as objective to
deal with different features or aspects of the general query or question.
1.23
Such general questions cen be dealt with in terms
8
of different paradigms,
1.24
They can be approached from different perspectives or points of view.
1.25
They can be dealt with on different levels of generalization or specificity.
1.27
Different dimensions of them can be identified and
investigated.
2
One thing all of them will have in common is that,
microscopically the exploration will in some way
include conceptual explorations or analysis. An investigation of the meaning of different ideas,words
and concepts.
2.1
This can be intentional,
2.2
9
This can be explicit, proceeding by means of explicit conceptual analysis,
.2.3
Or by means of conceptual analysis. For example
by dealing with illustrations and examples,as in
the case of Wittgenstein s Philosophical Investigations.
3
When viewed together, from a certain perspective,
they can be seen or interpreted as dealing with a
question, questions or different aspects of the processes of questioning.
3.1
Different types of questions, aims of questioning
and questions, purposes and functions of questions
have been identified by those dealing with questions and more specifically the Socratic Method.
3.2
This method is apparently widely used in education, law and other applications.
10
4
Questions. the asking of questions and questioning
anything do not automatically make anything philosophical or philosophical relevant.
4.1
These are tools that can and are employed in many
areas and contexts of human activity.
4.2
So what is it, or how is it that certain questions and
certain ways of asking and using questions become
philosophically relevant?
5
We find the definition, analysis and exploration of
the meaning of terms, words, ideas and concepts in
many contexts and areas of human activity.
5.2
The execution or utilization of these things do not
necessarily or automatically make anything, the
use of words, actions, behaviour or performance
philosophical.
5.3
11
These activities occur, take place and are executed
in many disciplines, contexts and areas of human
behaviour and activity.
5.4
How do these things need to be employed to make
them philosophical, philosophically relevant and
meaningful?
6
Imagine that we have now clarified our concepts
and ideas. So, subsequently we will employ these
words in ways that are meaningful to ourselves
and to those we interact with by means of them.
6.1
Therefore, consequently, we will not become involved in the creation of reflective, meta-order or
philosophically related issues and problems.
6.2
If such phenomena were to appear, we will hopefully recognize them immediately and deal with
them therapeutically.
6.21
12
In other words we willquestion any conceptually
related problems that appear as well as meta-order
issues and phenomena.
6.22
When necessary we will subject such things to different types of questioning and if required, microscopic conceptual exploration, analysis and clarification.
6.23
In this manner we will prevent the need for the
creation of philosophical speculation and the development of unnecessary and misleading philosophical ideas, notions and terminology.
7
Let us attempt to explore what philosophy might
be able to do and what activities crosses the limits
of the practices of the tools that are available to
this discipline and its reflections on seemingly philosophical dimensions of other socio-cultural practices. By the latter I refer to domains such as philosophy of mind, consciousness, philosophy of science and specific sciences, of art, cognition, social
sciences, religion, etc.
7.1
13
Consciousness has been a problematic notion in
the history of the Western Tradition of Philosophy.
7.11
It appears to be even an major and unsolvable problem in contemporary philosophy.
7.12
All sorts of speculations are made about consciousness, that lead to the creation of different theories.
7.13
These theories can be placed on a continuum that
has as one pole that of materialism and physicalism, to the opposite pole of the mind, spirit and
soul.
7.14
The former frequently follows the work of sciences, for example physics, chemistry, bio-chemistry,
neurosciences, biology, theories about fine tuning,
the multiverse, the nature and origins of our universe and planet, evolution, creation, human biology, embodiment, the brain, senses and nervous system, genotypes, phenotypes, the environment, etc.
The latter might approach speculations concerning
14
psychology, social sciences, culture, the soul, spirit
and psyche - both of individuals as well as the species, all phenomena and the universe, for example
in panpsychic theories.
8
My concern with the above, or explorations of and
the creation of theories about any notion is what can be done philosophically,
what is meaningful,
possible,
relevant,
more than fiction, speculation and opinion,
truth
?
8.1
What are the philosophical methods, tools and
techniques that are available?
8.2
What are the aims. objectives. purposes, goals, results, etc that can be realized by these tools?
15
8.21
How do these aims, results, etc differ from those
that can be realized by those of other disciplines
and socio-cultural practices?
Accompanying each discipline or every socio-cultural practice consists of specific methodologies,
methods, techniques, intersubjective practices, for
example scientific methods .
Does philosophy have unique methods and tools
and if it does, what are they?
8.3
Assuming and given that philosophizing, the doing
of philosophy, the intersubjectivities of different
philosophical schools, movements and -isms and
the repertoire of the the philosophical discipline
and socio-cultural practice is restricted to and concerned with conceptual clarification, exploration
and analysis - if it, they wish/es to remain meaningful.
8.31
Anything more or other than this objective will become speculation and opinion.
16
9
Meaning of the notion theory - a supposition or a
system of ideas intended to explain something, especially
one based on general principles independent of the thing to
be explained.
9.1
So as to provide philosophy with the widest open
field to define itself and for the discipline and its
different approaches and intersubjectivities to be
explored, I suggest that it in some way enables the
exploration and development of theory.
9.2
Philosophizing concern the process or processes of
theorizing..
9.3
At some stage it will be necessary to execute the
clarification or analysis of certain terms, notions or
concepts being employed.
This might be referred to as conceptual analysis or
representing the doing of philosophy or one tool of
philosophizing.
17
This however is not unique to and limited to the
discipline of philosophy as it will occur in most, if
not all, disciplines and all sorts of writings, for example the sciences.
Another feature of most investigations and an aspect of theorizing is the collection of data. This
will usually occur at the beginning of investigations. Again, it is not unique to the discipline or
the doing of philosophy or philosophizing.
9.4
My suggestion is that serious philosophizing or the
doing of philosophy resembles and will proceed
through the different stages of theorizing.
9.5
Certain stages and features of this process might
be emphasized while other stages, features, levels
and dimensions might be less emphasized, depending on the specific research and its objectives.
9.6
In this regard, philosophy and philosophizing do
not differ from other kinds of theorizing. So how
or in what ways do philosophical investigations or
philosophy differ from other kinds of research. In
what ways how or why is philosophy, philosophiz-
18
ing, its aims, objectives, functions and purposes
different from other forms of theorizing?
In short - in which ways, in what and how is philosophy and the doing of philosophy unique? In
what and which ways is it more than conceptual
analysis and the drawing of conclusions about the
results of such analysis and the creation of speculations about the results of such analysis?
10
Is philosophy and philosophizing anything else or
concerning with anything else than the making of
speculations and the reasoned and argued presentation of such speculations and opinions?
10.1
So, philosophy consists of or philosophizing proceeds by means of reasoning and argumentation.
.10.2
Perhaps this, the use of reasoning and the employment of logical thinking and argumentation is unique to philosophy?
In other words, it is the methods, the tools, the values of reason, reasoning and argumentation that
make philosophy and philosophizing unique?
19
But, these things are common to many kinds of
thinking and cognition and not limited to philosophy or philosophizing?
10.3
So, perhaps it is the questions that are being asked,
the ways that they are asked that are unique to philosophy and that make philosophy unique?
10.4
What is the nature, the aims, the objectives, the
reasons for, the purposes of and the functions of
philosophical questions?
11
Reasoning, logic, argumentation and their applications in thinking and behaviour are institutionalized and internalized in most cultures and areas of
existence.
Certain kinds of disruption in personal and interpersonal cognition, perception, thinking, existence,
behaviour and interpersonal contacts and interaction are usually not tolerated.
Some of these interruptions are fallacies in thinking, inconsistencies and contradictions in thinking
20
and behaviour and biases.
These things stop and prevent the natural, logical
flow of perception, thinking, behaviour, activity,
interaction, interpersonal existence. etc.
They are of course crucial in specialized activities,
behaviour, reasoning, thinking, writing, interaction, etc.
21
TWO
1
The following can be seen in different ways as an illustration of meta-philosophy,
as an exercise in the doing of meta-philosophy,
as an investigation in meta-philosophy, etc.
2
Many of my writings are relevant to this section
https://independent.academia.edu/UlrichdeBalbian
(latest 4/12/2018)MAKING PHILOSOPHICALLY RELEVANT
IDEAS (Things made Philosophically relevant
MAKING PHILOSOPHICALLY RELEVANT IDEAS (Things made
Philosophically relevant, 2018
How does anything become philosophy? How does anything become
philosophically relevant? What is it that makes something, any thing,
22
philosophically relevant?
What are the ingredients or components of something philosophical?
What must such a thing contain so as to be philosophically relevant?
How can one make anything of relevance to the discourse of philosophy?
What is it that makes anything and/or thought or idea of and about anything philosophical. and of philosophical relevance?
What is the nature, the characteristics and components of the methods,
the techniques, approach, questions, etc that enable something to be
made philosophy, and philosophically relevant?
Meta-Philosophy Questioning Philosophizing
Traditional philosophy is no longer viable, relevant and acceptable. It might be possible to continue doing philosophizing in traditional ways. It is possible to continue fabricating fictional realities
in the manner of the Pre-Socratics, Spinoza, Leibniz, Husserl,
Hegel, Plato, et al. It is possible to devise pictures of realities
and depictions of human consciousness and cognition like Descartes or in the Kantian manner.
One of the major issues with traditional philosophy is its lack of
self-awareness, the absence of meta-cognition. This lack of
meta-cognition of traditional philosophers leads to the creation of
all sorts of questionable phenomena and fake problems.
Traditional philosophy, metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, ethics, philosophy of sciences, religion, arts, etc are little more than
the possibilities, limits and restrictions enabled and allowed by
the philosopher's methodology, techniques and tools.
It is most likely possible to envisage a project to devise a collection or synthesis of many alternative realities by means of the insights and theories of theoretical physics, mathematics, biochemistry, biology and other sciences, the depictions produced
by the arts and pictures of realities presented by the humanities.
If such a system of pictures of reality is philosophically relevant
and meaningful is however another matter.
The original, creative thinking philosopher constitutes alternative
23
or new realities by his philosophizing. This philosophizing employs and resembles aspects and stages of the processes of
theorizing.
The real goal of philosophizing is to increase ever greater wisdom. Not merely wisdom in an abstract sense, but different kinds
of practical and applied wisdom in all areas of human, everyday
existence. In other words, like spirituality and mysticism philosophizing attempts to embody or incarnate wisdom. While mysticism or the mystical paths and aspects of religions aspire to unity experience, to become one with THE ONE, to become the
ONE, REAL SELF, to realize the Buddha mind or to be united or
'married' to the Beloved of Sufism.
Philosophizing is part of the Process/es of Theorizing
Philosophizing is part of the Process/es of Theorizing
An illustration (by means of a number of articles, books, opinions,
statements, hypotheses, theories, arguments, reasoning and comments)
of doing philosophy or philosophizing and its methods, as aspects of
the contexts, stages, steps and features of the process/es of theorizing.
A number of implicit assumptions and tacit pre-suppositions of this socio-cultural practice and discourse, for example as they resemble that
of everyday and religious perception (MNC, maturationally natural
perception, cognition, a nd action), are identified and revealed.
Irrelevant 'Philosophy' Ulrich de
Balbian
The tools employed might appear appropriate, the reasoning
24
sound and argumentation valid, but the subject-matter, well one
wonders what that has to do with philosophy, if anything at all?
Viewing some of the topics one really wonders of the notion of
philosophy is not stretched too far?
So much that is passed off as philosophy itself or some kind of
so-called interdisciplinary issues really appear as irrelevant.
Topics from the grievance studies especially fall under this. It
seems as if individuals have personal issues, obsessions and
psychological, social and cultural problems that they attempt to
interpret, perceive and treat as if they are philosophical and/or
philosophically related.
I wish to suggest that those issues are treated as disciplines or
subjects in their own right, for example racism, feminism and
gender studies, but not as if they have anything to do with philosophy or should be treated in a philosophical manner. As if they
inform us about profound philosophical issues or concerns. Perhaps aspects of them can be dealt with as psychological, anthropological, sociological, biological, political, etc, but dealing with
them as if they provide us with some kind of profound philosophical ideas and insights might be stretching the notion of philosophy a bit too far.
Ive wondered about the seeming dichotomy of materialism/physicalism and panpsychism and if they are really the only possible
consciousness explanatory positions?How about biologism?
That is as if all living biological matter or organisms are conscious, as well as that consciousness (the many types of it) can
be explained best by the nature of those phenomena. A biologically restricted form or modification of pan-psychism?
Meta-Philosophical Ideas Why and
How to do Philosophy
Meta-Philosophical Ideas ;Why and How do Philosophy, 2020
ABSTRACT
25
It can be summarized as the Why of Doing philosophy and the
How of Doing Philosophy.
For this purpose I deal with the notion of Consciousness. Not, to
develop or advocate yet another idea about this notion, nor to
present another speculation about how everything is conscious
or that all things deal with a number of meta-philosophical issues
and ideas.
things are physical, or any of the possible positions in between
these two poles. I merely mention this issue so as to illustrate
what and how philosophy will deal with it.
I then deal with some of the possible reasons and factors why
certain individuals feel the intense need, motivation and obligation to philosophize. I focus on the Western tradition of philosophy and on original- and creative philosophers. In other words, I
do not deal with those involved in academic institutions and professionals. The reason for this being that they teach, study, criticize and use the ideas of other thinkers and for academic related
reasons, rather than those of original- and creative thinkers.
I then deal with ideas about the nature and origins of our universe, as one possible universe, in a possible multiverse. Again,
the reason for this is not to support or advocate any of the models, but to try and identify what is philosophically involved and to
show how one will deal with them philosophically by questioning,
argumentation and reasoning.
Many people think when they talk about their every day lives, relationships and other aspects of their minute, little worlds, they
are doing philosophy. Some of the fashionable issues that are favoured at the moment are: racism, gender, feminism, men and
colonialism.
Such people think their attitudes, beliefs and opinions about
these flavour of the month topics are philosophy. Let them have
their obsessions and concerns, let them turn them into academic
subjects and qualifications, let them do post-doctorate research
and write endless books about them, but do not involve me.
How can I do philosophy as - there are things I do not know,
there are things that I do not know of and there are things that
will be know and thought in future that I will never be aware of.
26
Multi-sensory, embodied, consciousness (or mind) and minded
or consciousness, multi-sensory bodies of living organisms can
said to be poles of a continuum (2 perspectives). Mind and body
are often viewed in isolation, as unintegrated, dualistic phenomena, thus leading to false problems and -isms.
I deal with issues concerning the origins of our universe for example the mediocrity principle and the anthropic principle, finetuning hypothesis.
These three ideas, principles or hypotheses are of interest for a
number of philosophical reasons, so I will mention what they are
about.
Limits of Philosophy (norms what it
can and may do
Limits of Philosophy, 2020
I ask questions about the intersubjectivities associated with the discipline, its pre-suppositions, institutionalized problems, aims, objectives,
purposes, domains, terms, etc.
I commence with the existence of individuals of the human species, the
manner in which they are aware of, relate to,perceive, think and think
about the universe they find themselves in.
I mention the domains employed by philosophy to explore, talk about
and explain human beings in the universe, I intend to explore a number
of aspects of the discourse of philosophy and the doing of philosophizing.
namely metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, ethics, religion, the arts
and the tools being employed for the doing of philosophy.
I question institutionalized problems, the professionalization and institutionalization of philosophy and I ask if its problems are meaningful
and the ways in which it deals with them are the most appropriate
These are some of the limits of philosophy identified. It cannot meaningfully do the work of the sciences. It can be an area of study, research, teaching and learning like the Classics. Or, it can be done as
27
reasoned reflection on any subject, issues, topics, phenomena by
words, or performance and XPHI philosophy activities or expressions. There are three ways available to the doing of philosophy or
about philosophy.
1.1
The institutionalized academic thinking and writing about it, and the
study and teaching of it. This concerns already existing ideas from the
past and the work of others from the present.
1.2
As actions or activities such as in performance and experimental philosophy.
1.3
Then there is the opposite pole to 1.1 dealing with the work of others,
on the continuum of philosophically related activities, namely original,
creative thinking.
This consists of reasoned and argued reflection by means of concepts
on any ideas, phenomena, topics, issues, anything and everything.
PHILOSOPHY Aims, Methods,
Rationale
In this meta-philosophical study I commence with an investigation of
Wisdom. I then continue with an exploration of the institutionalization
of the subject and the professionalization of those involved in it. This I
contrast with original and creative philosophizing. In then sows that
philosophizing resembles and attempts to do theorizing. The 9 questions, etc of the Socratic Method and details of the Philosophical
Toolkit occur throughout different stages of theorizing as one level and
one dimension of it. Linked books are FREE for download.
1 Seeking, development and realization of wisdom
2 Institutionalization, Professionalization of philosophy
3 Original and Creative Thinking Philosophizing
37
4 Philosophizing resembles Theorizing
4
5
28
38
(i) Socratic Method
41
(ii) Philosophical Toolkit 145
----------------------------
Etc, etc, etc Just work through them.
2
I employ the following as an example of some of
the things that I( suggest concerning philosophy
and the ding of philosophy.
It concerns the use of words, like many other disciplines and certain aspects of disciplines and socio-cultural practices,
it concerns conceptual analysis,
it is the making of speculations and the expressions of opinions,
this is done by means of reasoning and argumentation.
these things can form part of a larger project that
consists of different features or aspects of the processes of theorizing.
29
3
See this work by Amanda Bryant on Twitter
-https://twitter.com/amandakbryant/status/1313602468178268163
Philosophers talk about "naturalism"
a lot, and they mean a bunch of different things by it. Here's a guide for
the perplexed, in which I introduce
the subject, sketch a brief history,
distinguish four distinctive kinds of
naturalism, and clarify their relation
to nearby views
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/think/article/naturalisms/53EF134C16D3C9CB224A0E78B74D4E7D
/share/489339c429fbb3b8975b64d1028ec0bc2e05
7997
IT is very well done and a perfect example of
many things I suggested above.
The different types of naturalism she distinguishes in fact is an illustration of conceptual ex-
30
ploration and analysis - in other words, the main
ingredient, method, technique and often the objective, aim and end result of philosophizing.
She suggests that she explores the history of the
notion, this is another mere playing with words.
She mention notions related to naturalism, materialism, etc.
In other words, she finds it necessary to explore related notions in her conceptual analysis or investigation and clarification of the meanings of these
terms.
When on views her present institution and its
aims, on is not surprised by her objectives, but it
confirms what I suggested.
https://cful.letras.ulisboa.pt/lancog/
The main aim of the Language, Mind and Cognition Group (LanCog) is to carry out high quality research on central philosophical
problems about the nature of language, mind and cognition.
Our activity is guided by the standards of analytic philosophy, a tradition whose distinctive traits are the clarity and rigour deployed in
formulating problems and arguments, and the focus on public discussion and critical examination of ideas.
We are responsible for the edition of Disputatio (former web-
31
site here) and Compêndio em Linha de Problemas de Filosofia Analítica.
4
Bryant employs a model to explore different meanings of the notion of naturalism. It consists of 4
perspectives or approaches, namely, metaphysical,
epistemological, logico-linguistic and methodological naturalism.
Important is that she mentions four adjacent views,
namely physicalism, scientism and empiricism.
I do not subscribe to her four perspectives or that
these three notions are the only other notions that
are related to physicalism, materialism, etc.
The point I wish to make is the following can this model of hers be applied to other notions,
for example consciousness, and to particular theories about or approaches to the investigation of and
philosophical thinking about consciousness, for ex-
32
ample panpsychism, epistemological and the methodological.
In that case we will explore consciousness and
panpsychism from the perspectives of the metaphysical, the logico-linguistic, the methodological
and the epistemological.
And, investigations in terms of other notions related to physicalism, for example, materialism, scientism, empiricism and other notions.
5
The above, about philosophy as being concerned
with conceptual explorations, merely is an observation and not intended to project special value or
functionality on the discipline.
The glorification of that practice of speculation
and opinions by the employment of reasoning and
33
reason and the usage of argumentation is merely
an expression of the nature of that socio-cultural
practice.
6
I did not imply that Bryant s exercise is perfect at
developing a model or the creation of a model, it
also is merely an observation.
An observation that what she does and philosophical concerns with conceptual exploration forms
part of certain features, aspects and contexts of the
development of models and the processes of theorizing.
Much more work is required by her to develop her
speculations and statements as a fully blown model and a theory. This is not intended as criticism of
her work, but merely stating the fact that the development of a model and its eventual application or
34
the creation and employment of a theory is complex.
6.1
I also do not imply that only philosophy is concerned with conceptual analysis or that it is the
most appropriate tool for that exercise,
Conceptual exploration and clarification form part
of many human, socio-cultural practices, many disciplines and also everyday existence, interaction
and conversations.
It will be found in all disciplines as the clarification of existing and the development of new terms.
7
Philosophy appears to be desperate to regain some
kind of status that it lost with the differentiation of
sciences, the arts and humanities.
35
It attempts to obtain this empirical dimension in
different ways for example,
by the use of examples and illustrations,
imaginary or thought experiments,
performance, practical, counselling, public and experimental philosophy, etc.
Here is an example of what theorizing is not and
how it is different from experimental, scientific
work. A link from Twitter -
James Gleick
@JamesGleick
What the theorists do and what we experimenters do
Wonderful. https://scientificamerican.com/article/the-fermilabmuon-measurement-might-or-might-not-point-to-new-physics-but/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-fermilab-muon-measurement-might-or-might-not-
36
point-to-new-physics-but/
On April 7, particle physicists all over the world
were excited and energized by the announcement of a
measurement of the behaviour of muons the heavier,
unstable subatomic cousins of electrons that differed
significantly from the expected value.
A century from now, looking back on this moment,
will historians understand this excitement? They certainly wont see a major turning point in the history of
science. No puzzle was solved, no new particle or field
was discovered, no paradigm shifted in our picture of
nature. What happened on April 7 was just an announcement that the muons wobble its value is
called g-2 had been measured a little more precisely
than before, and that the international high-energy
physics community was therefore a little more confident that other particles and fields are out there yet to
be discovered.
Nevertheless, historians of science will see this as a
special moment, not because of the measurement but
because of the measuring. The first results of the experiment at Fermilab was the outcome of a remarkable and perhaps even unprecedented set of interactions between an extraordinarily diverse set of scientific cultures that, over 60 years, evolved independently
yet required each other.
37
38
3
Theory - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org wiki Theory
A theory is a rational type of abstract thinking about a phenomenon, or the results of such thinking. The process of
contemplative and rational thinking is often associated with
such processes as observational study or research. Theories may either be scientific or other than scientific (or scientific to less extent
The Structure of Scientific Theories (Stanford Encyclopedia of ...
https://plato.stanford.edu entries structure-scientific-...
RG Winther · 2015 · Cited by 118 Introduction. In philosophy, three families of perspectives on scientific theory are
operative: the Syntactic View, the Semantic View, and the ...
39
theory in researchtheory synonymtheory psychology
theory definition sciencewhat is theory pdfconcept of theory
What Is Theory? | SkillsYouNeed
https://www.skillsyouneed.com learn theory
A theory is an attempt to explain why and so to provide understanding. · A theory is not just 'any' explanation - a theory comes into being when a series of ideas ..
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structure-scientific-theories/
In philosophy, three families of perspectives on scientific
theory are operative: the Syntactic View, the Semantic
View, and the Pragmatic View. Savage distills these philosophical perspectives thus:
The syntactic view that a theory is an axiomatized collection of sentences has been challenged by the semantic view that a theory is a collection of nonlinguistic models, and both are challenged by the view that a
theory is an amorphous entity consisting perhaps of sentences and
models, but just as importantly of exemplars, problems, standards,
skills, practices and tendencies. (Savage 1990, viiviii)
40
Mormann (2007) characterizes the Syntactic and Semantic Views in similar terms, and is among the first to use
the term Pragmatic View to capture the third view
(137). The three views are baptized via a trichotomy
from linguistics deriving from the work of Charles Morris, following Charles S. Peirce.
1. Introduction
1.1 Syntactic, Semantic, and Pragmatic Views: The
Basics
1.2 Two Examples: Newtonian Mechanics and Population Genetics
2. The Syntactic View
2.1 Theory Structure per the Syntactic View
2.2 A Running Example: Newtonian Mechanics
2.3 Interpreting Theory Structure per the Syntactic
View
2.4 Taking Stock: Syntactic View
41
3. The Semantic View
3.1 Theory Structure per the Semantic View
3.2 A Running Example: Newtonian Mechanics
3.3 Interpreting Theory Structure per the Semantic
View
3.4 Taking Stock: Semantic View
4. The Pragmatic View
4.1 Theory Structure per the Pragmatic View
4.2 A Running Example: Newtonian Mechanics
4.3 Interpreting Theory Structure per the Pragmatic
View
4.4 Taking Stock: Pragmatic View
A theory is a rational type of abstract thinking about a phenomenon, or the results of such thinking. The process of
42
contemplative and rational thinking is often associated with
such processes as observational study or research. Theories
may either be scientific or other than scientific (or scientific
to less extent). Depending on the context, the results might,
for example, include generalized explanations of how nature works. The word has its roots in ancient Greek, but in
modern use it has taken on several related meanings.
In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a
well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required
by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that
scientific tests should be able to provide empirical support for it, or
empirical contradiction ("falsify") of it. Scientific theories are the
most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific
[1]
knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which in
[2]
formal terms is better characterized by the word hypothesis). Scientific theories are distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and from scientific laws,
which are descriptive accounts of the way nature behaves under
certain conditions.
Theories guide the enterprise of finding facts rather than of reaching goals, and are neutral concerning alternatives among va[3]:131
lues.
A theory can be a body of knowledge, which may or may
not be associated with particular explanatory models. To theorize is
[4]:46
to develop this body of knowledge.
The word theory or "in theory" is sometimes used erroneously by
people to explain something which they individually did not ex[5]
perience or test before. In those instances, semantically, it is
being substituted for another concept, a hypothesis. Instead of
using the word "hypothetically", it is replaced by a phrase: "in theory". In some instances the theory's credibility could be contested
by calling it "just a theory" (implying that the idea has not even
[6]
been tested). Hence, that word "theory" is very often contrasted
to "practice" (from Greek praxis, ) a Greek term for doing,
[6]
which is opposed to theory. A "classical example" of the distinction between "theoretical" and "practical" uses the discipline of
medicine: medical theory involves trying to understand the causes and nature of health and sickness, while the practical side of
43
medicine is trying to make people healthy. These two things are related but can be independent, because it is possible to research
health and sickness without curing specific patients, and it is possi[a]
ble to cure a patient without knowing how the cure worked.
Contents
1Ancient usage
2Formality
Theories are analytical tools for understanding, explaining, and
making predictions about a given subject matter. There are theories in many and varied fields of study, including
the arts and sciences. A formal theory is syntactic in nature and
is only meaningful when given a semantic component by applying it to some content (e.g., facts and relationships of the actual
historical world as it is unfolding). Theories in various fields of
study are expressed in natural language, but are always constructed in such a way that their general form is identical to a
theory as it is expressed in the formal language of mathematical
logic. Theories may be expressed mathematically, symbolically,
or in common language, but are generally expected to follow
principles of rational thought or logic.
Theory is constructed of a set of sentences that are entirely true
statements about the subject under consideration. However, the
truth of any one of these statements is always relative to the whole
theory. Therefore, the same statement may be true with respect to
one theory, and not true with respect to another. This is, in ordinary
language, where statements such as "He is a terrible person" cannot
be judged as true or false without reference to some interpretation of who "He" is and for that matter what a "terrible person" is
[11]
under the theory.
Sometimes two theories have exactly the same explanatory power because they make the same predictions. A pair of such theories
is called indistinguishable or observationally equivalent, and the
choice between them reduces to convenience or philosophical preference.
The form of theories is studied formally in mathematical logic,
especially in model theory. When theories are studied in mathemat-
44
ics, they are usually expressed in some formal language and their
statements are closed under application of certain procedures
called rules of inference. A special case of this, an axiomatic theory, consists of axioms (or axiom schemata) and rules of inference.
A theorem is a statement that can be derived from those axioms by
application of these rules of inference. Theories used in applications are abstractions of observed phenomena and the resulting theorems provide solutions to real-world problems. Obvious examples
include arithmetic (abstracting concepts of number), geometry (concepts of space), and probability (concepts of randomness
and likelihood).
Gödel's incompleteness theorem shows that no consistent, recursively enumerable theory (that is, one whose theorems form a recursively enumerable set) in which the concept of natural numbers can be expressed, can include all true statements about them.
As a result, some domains of knowledge cannot be formalized, accurately and completely, as mathematical theories. (Here, formalizing accurately and completely means that all true propositions
and only true propositionsare derivable within the mathematical
system.) This limitation, however, in no way precludes the construction of mathematical theories that formalize large bodies of
scientific knowledge.
2.1Underdetermination
2.2Intertheoretic reduction and elimination
2.3Versus theorems
3Scientific
3.1Definitions from scientific organizations
3.2Philosophical views
The logical positivists thought of scientific theories as deductive theoriesthat a theory's content is based on
some formal system of logic and on basic axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of
[11]
that theory. This is called the received view of theories.
In the semantic view of theories, which has largely replaced the re-
45
[15][16]
ceived view,
theories are viewed as scientific models. A model is a logical framework intended to represent reality (a "model of
reality"), similar to the way that a map is a graphical model that represents the territory of a city or country. In this approach, theories
are a specific category of models that fulfill the necessary criteria.
(See Theories as models for further discussion.)
3.3In physics
3.4Regarding the term theoretical
4Mathematical
5Philosophical
A theory can be either descriptive as in science, or prescrip[18]
tive (normative) as in philosophy. The latter are those whose
subject matter consists not of empirical data, but rather of ideas.
At least some of the elementary theorems of a philosophical
theory are statements whose truth cannot necessarily be scientifically tested through empirical observation.
A field of study is sometimes named a "theory" because its basis is
some initial set of assumptions describing the field's approach to
the subject. These assumptions are the elementary theorems of the
particular theory, and can be thought of as the axioms of that field.
Some commonly known examples include set theory and number
theory; however literary theory, critical theory, and music theory are also of the same form.
5.1Metatheory
6Political
7
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#
https://www.skillsyouneed.com/learn/theory.html
This page covers the basics of un-
46
derstanding what is meant by the
word theory and how theories are
developed.
As well as describing theory the page
gives a brief introduction to the steps involved in the construction of theory, in
an academic or scientific context.
A theory is a method we use to give us understanding.
One of the major purposes of a theory is to
provide an answer to the question
why? .
Asking, why? , to increase your
knowledge of a subject area and realign
your thoughts and opinions is an essential
skill for anybody who wants to learn and develop.
Why
is one of the very first questions that
children ask:
Can
you get ready for bed now?! " Oh why?!
Why is snow cold?!
Why do I have to go to school tomorrow?!
47
Why
is the sky blue?!
Questions like these, from children, can be endless.
Often finding or providing suitable explanations can
be exhausting and frustrating # perhaps we resort to
saying, Well it just is!! At the basis of such questions
however, are a child$s first attempts to understand the
world around them, and develop their own theories of
why things are the way they are.
Defining %theory&, therefore, has to take into account the %why?& question, but a theory is deeper
than that. The points below go some way to helping with a definition.
A theory is an attempt to explain why and so to
provide understanding.
A theory is not just 'any$ explanation - a theory
comes into being when a series of ideas come to
be held and accepted by a wider community of
people.
A theory is not necessarily factually based # how
we understand and provide explanations arises
from our cultural background and how we view the
world.
48
Understanding Theory
Although there are no hard and fast
rules, modern theory is usually developed through a series of steps, by academics and scientists.
It is important to understand that the steps
to theory development, as listed on this
page, are generally thought of as being sequential ( one step follows the last.
In reality there is often more than one of
these processes being engaged in at any
one time.
From Observation to Understanding
Observation (usually the effect)
Description
Possible theory - hypothesis
49
Reading - placing individual understanding in context
Research
More reading
Accepting, rejecting or modifying a hypothesis
Theory # understanding why # and this being accepted by a wider community of people
https://www.grin.com/document/285956
Why theory is important for scientific investigators
and business professionals? Could theorists generate
theory from trial and error approach, or a good theory must follow and go beyond specific virtues? Does
theory necessarily require application? Do business
professionals practice real business problems without
theory? Eventually, is there an inevitable connection
between theory and research? Theory's precise nature involves a vigorous debate among social scientists, academics, and business professionals, because
science embraces empirical research; otherwise, it
consists of untested constructs. However, the theme
of the debate is embedded in different types of theory and in the scholarly views of what constitutes a
good theory. In this paper we present three views on
the nature and types of theory, focus on the relationship between theory and research, and identify theoretical directions through which research can contribute to theory. This paper is organized as follow. We
begin by discussing literature review on the nature
and types of theory and prescribe different opinions
on what constitutes a theory. With this background,
we then turn to differentiating theory from related
concepts, such as hypothesis,
50
paradigm, and model. The literature review section extends to
explore the relationship between theory and research. We end
the literature review section with discussions of implications of
the short-term liquidity theory for measuring firms liquidity position and a variety of financial gauges commonly used in financial analysis field. Next we turn to present a discussion and findings section, within which we elucidate and synthesize theory
traditions and provides an orientation toward short-term liquidity measurement theory. Finally, we conclude the paper with a
set of propositions that summarizes the most significant aspects
of theory and theory traditions.
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_20
https://zcomm.org/wp-content/uploads/zinstructionals/htdocs/RTInstruc/id6.htm
What's a Theory?
Theories are collections of concepts about some
real world area of concern or interest which facilitate explaining, predicting, or intervening. With
theories we explain why and how things occur as
they do. We predict what is going to happen given
the way things are. And we choose ways of acting
to make things turn out in some way we desire.
Some theories are better for one or more of these
purposes, worse for others. Darwin)s theory of
51
Natural Selection, for example, explains very well,
predicts barely at all and allows intervention of
only a quite limited sort. Theories of the solar system, based on Newtonian gravity, not only explain
but also allow us to prediction example where a
planet will be on some day and even hour 50
years from now. Social theories generally explain,
predict, and permit intervention, all to a degree,
not with perfect confidence, but with enough to
be much more useful than just winging it, so to
speak.
So what do we want for ourselves in the way
of theory?
We want a theory that explains social events and
trends because we want to be able to situate ourselves * to explain to others * to understand the
way things are. And we want a theory that can
predict these same types of phenomena, because
we want to be able to have a notion of what)s
coming. And we want a theory, in particular, that
can help guide our actions to help us intervene in
what)s happening, to affect it, and to work for outcomes that we might desire. So it turns out we
want a pretty powerful theory for our domain,
which is society and history.
Still, if we are going to create a powerful theory or
conceptual framework for ourselves to use we are
going to need to know more about what a theory
is and what it includes. Theories are made up of
concepts.
52
Literature ReviewDespite many scholars define theory
using different theoretical perspectives, developing an exact definition
of a theory spawns the need of a logical identification of what is a good
theory? Without such definition, a high degree of uncertainty will surround scientific inquiry processes and managerial decision-making
fields. The next section begins by introducing what theory is and demonstrates three different themes on the nature of theory that are rooted in the concept of minitheories, ingredients of a good theory (Gelso,
2006), and positivist and post-positivist knowledge creation paradigms
(Stem, 2007; Goduks, 20The academic literature on the definition of
theory provides a plethora of definitions and opinions that are driven
from different angles and at multiple levels. For example, Gelso (2006)
claimed that a theory can be thought of as a statement of a testable relationship that may exist between and among a set of variables associated with a certain phenomenon. According to Stem (2007), a theory is
a group of logically organized sentences of a relationship that constitutes a set of observations. In the same vein, Henderikus (as cited in Gay
& Weaver, 2011) asserted that observations are theory-laden. In addition, Wacker (1999) provided a detail view of theory, including the elements of a scientific theory. Wacker (1999) also argued that the definition of theory should include four components: definitions, domain, relationships, and predictive claims. Corley and Gioia (2011) situated the
definitions provided above when they posited that theory is a statement of concepts and their interrelationships that shows and/or why a
phenomenon occurs (p. 12). However, one of the primary reasons of
these different definitions is that scholars approach a theory from different views (Gelso, 2006; Stam, 2007). In addition, a theory involves
different types, including minitheories (Gelso, 2006). Gelso's (2006) research methodology in applying theories to research is structured by
several research studies of psychological science, such as therapy and
personality theories, and used data analysis and observation approaches
for data collection purposes. Gelso (2006) posited the concept of minitheories that tends to be parts of comprehensive theories. According to
Gelso (2006), minitheories describe a specific aspect of a broad theory
but explain very narrow behaviors of a certain phenomenon. For example, how liquidity ratios theory is constructed? The liquidity ratios the-
53
ory is often rooted in the concepts established by a grand financial analysis system, but the theory does not seek to explain the broader frame
of the short-term liquidity measurement (Kirkham, 2012). Rappaport
(2001) presented similar results and argued that economic models are
minitheories and constitute global theories in economics. Furthermore,
a theory may be also thought of as a coherent set of interlinked ingredients. According to Gelso's (2006) philosophical version of theory, a
good scientific theory ought to possess specific ingredients. Gelso
(2006) suggested a set of necessary ingredients of a good scientific theory: descriptive ability, explanatory power, heuristic value, testability,
integration, parsimony, clarity, comprehensiveness, and delimitation.
These parameters constitute interlinked components of a good scientific theory. For example, the descriptive ability and explanatory power
components reflect the extent to which good theories have the ability to
effectively translate data into quantifiable results that could describe
and explain the cause-effect relationship among variables Gelso
(2006). In additional to these ingredients, the qualities of a good theory
include what tend to be termed heuristic value (Gelso, 2006). Other
Gelso's (2006) suggested ingredients of a good theory are collectively
indicated that theories stimulate research that contains a precise problem statement, purposes, questions, and testable propositions and constructs, in which the inherent connection between theory and research
becomes a profound and inevitable. Furthermore, central to logical positivist philosophy of science that holds another position of theories, as
empirically interpreted deductive and axiomatic system is called the received view (Stam, 2007). The received view attributes a scientific theory to a set of propositions that generate logical empirical facts (Stam,
2007). According to Stam (2007), the received view involves a reductionism approach, through which the goal of knowledge is simply describing what positivists can observe and measure. Such a position requires the rejection of metaphysics (Goduka, 2012). One implication
that can be drawn from the reductionism approach is that because researchers can not directly observe emotions, personality characteristics, etc. these attributes were not justifiable topics for a scientific research (Goduka, 2012). Another consequence of the reductionism approach is the need to understand the part of the whole to understand the
whole (Shepherd & Sutcliffe, 2011). For instance, a researcher who
54
measures to what extent is there a correlation between liquidity ratios
and operating cash flow ratios in measuring a firm's liquidity position
can not rely solely upon key dependent and independent variables; instead, the researcher needs to employ multiple variables that must be
organized in a correlation analysis design. In contrast, where the positivist believed that the goal of science is to describe what we can observe and measure, the post-positivist believes that all observations are
theory-laden (Goduka, 2012 & Stem, 2007). However, theory-building
is not so much a single discipline. The discussion should be extended
to explain views of what constitutes a theory and the different assumptions governing theory generation.
Although there is little agreement and a lack of consensus on exactly
what theory is, the academic literature includes a plethora of views and
different opinions on what constitutes a theory. However, the idea of
what constitutes a theory rests primarily on the theory s ability to provide original and practical-oriented insights about a certain phenomenon by disciplinarily advancing or challenging existing knowledge (Corley & Gioia, 2011). The focus here will be primarily on three views of
what constitutes a theory; theory contains originality and utility dimensions, theory serves certain functions, and theory as a list of virtues and
criteria.
Understanding theory, its practical application, and how to
select a theoretical framework for research studies is often a challenging problem for new graduate and doctoral
business students. As these students explore theory use
in various fields and the general academic body of knowledge, this task can become even more daunting and confusing. There does not appear to be a common definition
of theory across or within different disciplines. Further,
55
scholars disagree on the value of theory and its practical
application. This paper explores the scholarly nature of
theory, its application, and its relationship to world view.
Examples and a discussion are provided to better help
students absorb this important yet ambiguous topic.
56
FOUR
1
The initial or most basic features of questions
probably concerns concepts.
Both the concepts the subject asking the questions
or phrasing his questions as well as the objects that
are being questioned,that the questions are asked
of or about.
2.
Concepts will be employed in all socio-cultural
practices, disciplines or areas of human existence.
I have no interest in exploring this geography, this
mapping or geology of conceptual usage and clarification.
3.
Clarification of concepts most likely existed as
long as concepts were employed, but I have no interest in the exploration of the history of conceptual clarification in general, in certain disciplines,
for example the sciences and philosophy.
57
3.1
This exercise always formed part of philosophical
thinking and writing.
We find it in all historical periods, schools, movements and the thinking of individual philosophers.
3.11
Select the names of a few philosophers, then identify concepts and ideas that are fundamental to
them, their theories, system of ideas and thinking.
Those ideas that ar the basis of their thinking and/
or the worlds created or imagined by them and the
constitutions or interpretations of reality they admit.
3.12
Here are a few names Plato and Aristotle, Plotinus, Locke, Hume, Kant,
Hegel and his idealistic pals,Marx and his descendants such as The Frankfurt Schule, Habermas and
the Critical Theorists to th 5th or nth Generation,
the French word comedians, and of course the Oxbridge clan, the early Luddy and the Later Wittgenstein and of cf course their American relatives.
All taking their ideas and favourite notions to be
the world (of philosophy), philosophy itself and
58
the beginning and end of anthropocentered being
and existence.
3.13
Look at wgat concepts and the employment of
words do to them, as philosophers and human
beings, for example Nietzsche, Kierkegaard et al.
3.2
Conceptual clarification became both the purpose,
the aim, objective and the function or tool if philosophy the last century.
3.21
This occurred especially in Anglo-Saxon philosophy, but the exploration of and play with and about
words form a great part of Continental philosophy
as well, for example that of Derrida and other
French philosophers or verbal comedians.
Again, I have no interest in a historical exploration
and geographical mapping of this disease, its nature, tools or its causes, reasons and consequences.
3.3
One finds it as the main philosophical objective in
the playing with words such as consciousness, the
hard, the real and the no-problem, lols, mind-body,
etc.
59
3.4
https://zcomm.org/wp-content/uploads/zinstructionals/htdocs/RTInstruc/id6.htm
Still, if we are going to create a powerful theory or
conceptual framework for ourselves to use we are
going to need to know more about what a theory
is and what it includes. Theories are made up of
concepts.
So what is a concept?
A concept is surely an idea, most will argue.
Okay. Yes, but what is an idea? This may seem
trite for a time, as we go through these picayune
details, but actually it is very important because
the differences between theories mostly happen
at this level. Once you get past the first stages of
establishing the basic concepts, the rest of theory
building is largely mechanical.
3.5
Conceptual clarification does not only have the
aim and function to explore and define notions so
that they enable meaningful individual or subjec-
60
tive usage, thinking, perception, understanding and
communication, but also has intersubjective usages and functions.
3.6
So what ia concept -- "It+s an assumption."
Well, sometimes. But for our purposes a concept
is just a name for something. I mean, we know
what a concept is. It)s is a word. A concept is *
well we can perhaps best define it by giving examples.
Is an atom a concept? Is an electron a concept? Is
income a concept? Is full employment a concept?
Yes, these things are all concepts. But what
makes them concepts? Well, they are just names
of something that we think is out there in the real
world which we have broken off from the whole of
reality and given a separate name/identity. Of all
the masses of interconnected stuff in the real
world, there are some parts that we want to pay
special attention to. We want our theory to revolve around those parts, to highlight those parts.
And so we have concepts to name the parts or
components or features or aspects that we want
to keep track of.
Consider an example of a concept inside the
body. How about blood pressure? Yes, or maybe
the circulatory system, let)s say. That)s a concept.
But what isn)t a concept, say, is the head plus the
61
left wrist. We don)t have a name for that. The head
plus left wrist does exist in the world and we
could give it a name, but we haven)t done so, as
far as I know. So you could have a name for the
head plus the left wrist and then that would be a
concept. It would be one of the ways of organizing data that you use when you are thinking theoretically about the biology of human beings. But it
turns out that it is not very useful to combine the
head and the left wrist and give it a name, "herist," because we don)t in fact have any interest in
tracking the dynamics of the head plus left wrist.
It doesn)t come into play as an entity useful to focus on when trying to explain, predict, or intervene in human biology.
What is the difference, then, between head plus
left wrist (which we could give the name herist
but don)t) and these bunches of little things that
are stringing through the body that we call the circulatory system? The difference is that the circulatory system has characteristics and attributes
that have relevance to what our theory)s purpose
is , which is to understand human beings in order to be able to intervene in health, etc. -- and
that are useful for that reason. That)s what concepts are about. You are just looking at reality and
you are putting a label on some features or phenomena that are useful to keep track of. A tree is
a concept, but the largest branch plus the oldest
leaf isn)t a concept. Perhaps it sounds stupid put
so crassly, but this is quite important. The idea is
that you are trying to find things that correspond
to something real and that also facilitate analysis
and prediction and can help in guidance.
62
Okay, so far, so good. Consider the concept exchange value in economics. It)s like what you
think of as price. If you have a product, the exchange value is what that product trades for. And
in different theories, the actual amount for an item
will be explained in different ways. But what an
item can get in an exchange is itself a concept.
What isn)t a concept in economics, however, is
the color of the item. The exchange value of the
item is a concept that we use in economic theory.
The color of the product is not a concept that we
use in economic theory. Nobody who)s an economist gives a damn about how many items are
which color so they don)t follow color in their theory. You can pick up any economics book and
look forever and you won)t find attention to color
of items in the theoretical apparatus. Color of
items produced and exchanged is not a useful
thing, economists believe, to put a label on and to
bring into prime viewing territory in our intellectual toolbox. It isn)t that it doesn)t exist. It isn)t
that we can)t do it. And they could be wrong, of
course, and if they are their theory will be poorer
as a result of leaving out color as a featured concept. But if they are right ,- as I think they arethen not wasting time tracking color is a sensible
choice.
What we)re going to do shortly is to judge and
also create concepts that will hopefully help us
understand societies and history. We)re going to
also put these concepts that we create into our intellectual toolbox and use them.
63
So what do we know so far?
.
To create theory we develop concepts
cut out of the whole interconnected tapestry out there in the real world and
then use them to answer questions
about why and how things happen,
what you can expect to happen, and
how you might affect what happens.
.
And when looking at the interrelations
among the concepts you have doesn)t
answer your questions properly for you,
you realize that you need some more
concepts or to adapt those you are
using.
.
The theory is an understanding of how
your chosen concepts interact and interrelate and affect one another and
move dynamically over time. Gender
and class, for example, are concepts.
They are names for things out there in
reality that are useful in our theory,
maybe.
What are some Social Theories and their key
concepts?
Okay, moving right along, what's the name of
some social theories that radicals might use to
64
understand the world in order to intervene to
make it better?
"Marxism?" "Feminism?"
Yes, marxism, feminism, also nationalism is another one, and anarchism is another intellectual
framework radicals who are critical of existing relations use to understand, predict, and try to
guide actions. Call these things theories, call
them intellectual frameworks, call them anything
you want, but we know what we mean. It's a way
of looking at reality, of organizing our thoughts, of
prioritizing, based on concepts. You can think of
each framework as a helpmate that you can carry
around in a pouch. You use the helpmate's apparatus and the concepts that it has to try to explain
things, to try to predict things, and to try and
guide practice.
What are the concepts of these different intellectual frameworks or theories-or let's just start with
one, Marxism. What are some of the key concepts
that are associated with Marxism?
"Class struggle?" "Economics?"
Certainly class struggle is, and so is just class,
for that matter. Economy is, and also alienation,
exploitation, commodity, relations of production,
ownership relations, exchange value, use value,
profit rate, and so on. We don't have to detail
what all these mean and perhaps you have only
65
heard some, but just keep these names and your
impression of broadly what they refer to in the
back of your mind as some of the key Marxist
concepts, for a moment.
Okay, continuing, then, what are some the anarchist concepts?
"Hierarchy?" "Mutual Aid?"
Well, hierarchy certainly is one. Perhaps mutual
aid, certainly authoritarianism and also decentralization, perhaps. And certainly the state, dictatorship, laws, and so on.
Let's continue on into feminism. What are the
concepts of feminism?
"Patriarchy?"
Patriarchy is a key feminist concept, sure. What
else? Gender, sexuality, sexism. Of course.
We had class up there in Marxism. We could've
added * what could we have added that's a derivative of class? What's the top class in our society?
"Capitalist?"
66
Clearly: capitalist, worker, and maybe some others, too. And in anarchism we could have added
the authority figure, the person at the top of the
hierarchy. The order giver, maybe dictator or president or whatever, and the order taker. What
about in feminism? What are some of the concepts like those, there?
"Man and woman?"
Man and woman, for sure, and also perhaps mother and father, for example. Those are concepts
that are part of feminism. Woman and man. They
are people out there. There are women and men
out there and what is a woman and what is a man
is critically important. For some theories we say
just people. We don't need to further refine our
concepts beyond just people. (Actually many theories did this out of sexist denial that there is anything other than men, and suffered for this weakness of their initial choice of concepts.) In fact, in
Marxism there is generally little further refinement
beyond people, or classes of people. Okay, finally,
what about Nationalism? What are some of the
key concepts in nationalism?
"Nation* ethnicity*race?"
Yes, and religion and specific instances of these
for sure. Maybe communities. Culture, modes of
celebration and communication and identification. Forms of relations among them - racism, ethnocentrism, apartheid, and so on.
67
Okay, keeping all this in mind, let's go back to the theories we were
dealing with before, the ones that radicals might use to deal with society and history.
Feminism's Concepts
For example, why is it that feminism comes into
being and looks the way it does? Why does it
have the concepts that it has? Somebody who is
a strong feminist answer please*
"Because it is interested in a relationship between
people?"
Sure, yes, but which relationship?
"The one between people and men."
Hmmm. People meaning women, I take it, and
men meaning the dregs. Yes, I can go with that.
Yes * and so whose interests are guiding the
choices of this theory?
"Women's interests?"
Broadly, yes, of course. And so women look at the
world from the point of view of their interests and
try to name what the important features are and
what are the key features to keep track of, and
they arrive at a set of concepts. Now it shouldn't
68
be surprising that those concepts are going to
have a certain tilt, let's call it. And other concepts
when someone looks at the world starting out
with another set of priorities are going to have a
different tilt. That makes sense.
Generalizing
To hammer it home, let's get away, again, this
time just for a minute, from areas where our desires may confuse us. Let's think of a radio for a
second. I have a theory of the radio suitable for
getting sounds out of it by turning the knob and
controlling the volume. My concepts are knob, volume, station, and so on. Someone else, however,
has a theory of the radio that gets to the innards
of it and permits fixing problems that arise there.
Her concepts might be transistor, diode, or whatever. Another person, the designer, perhaps, has
a theory of it that is still more basic, emphasizing
electromagnetic waves, etc. We have different
purposes so we have different concepts and theory. There is nothing wrong with that.
Now, take this recognition back to theorizing society. It might be that a particular viewpoint is too
narrow in light of some end. Sure. But it also
might be that same particular viewpoint is quite
powerful, at least from the point of view of a certain set of other priorities.
69
So What Do We Want?
Okay, we said we were going to start trying to build our own
new world view or theory. To do that, we know that we have
to stock it with concepts - that is, with names for parts of
reality that we are going to want to pay special attention to
in our work.
Okay, so what are some concepts that we
want our theory to have?
"Environmentalism?" "The ecology?"
Yes, you might say environmentalism or the ecology. Okay, sure.
"What about sustainability?"
Well yes, it is a concept, but it is also a value and I
don't want values now. All we are doing for the
moment is finding basic things that are out there
in society and history that we want to highlight*we're not judging anything yet, so we don't
yet want value terms. We're not trying to decide
what we want or don't want, just yet. For now we
just want to know what we need to include in this
theory as elements of reality that we are going to
be constantly focused on.
"How about culture?"
70
Do we want to pay attention to culture? Yes, of
course we do.
"Class?"
Yes.
"Race?"
Certainly.
"Sexuality?"
I would hope so. And rather than take it one at a
time, isn't it pretty clear that at least as a group, if
we go around and keep offering choices, we want
pretty much all the things that all of those other
radical dissident theories that we talked about
last lecture have? So maybe we can take a short
cut toward our destination by borrowing from
these heritages. What is each of these theory's
reason for being? First, for example, why does
Marxism exist as a theory? What is it about the
world that breeds Marxism?
"Oppression?"
Yes, true enough, but what about it? What kind of
oppression?
71
Class interest? Yes, and so there is something
about the world that divides us into groups, one
of which has an interest in understanding the
economy from the point of view of Marxism.
Which group is that?
"Workers, of course."
Okay, so we have one possibility offered that it is
workers, which is what marxists themselves
would answer, of course. And we certainly know
it's not capitalists. Right? Although, who was a
capitalist?
"Engels was."
Yes, and so not every picture is perfect. It just
doesn't work out like astronomy or the mechanics
of moving objects, with no deviations from expectations. Engels shouldn't be a capitalist for this
story to flow really smoothly. The fact that he was,
from that perspective, is somewhat annoying. But
he was and although capitalists are supposed to
have a certain kind of world view, well, he just
didn't fit the mold perfectly. But the mold works
pretty well most of the time and so the world has
features which cause it, we know, to create this
economic dynamic including creating groups or
classes which have specific interests and then
look at the world in light of those interests. Bourgeois economists look at the world, and come up
with neoclassical economics to rationalize the
world. Business schools look at the world, for ca-
72
pitalists in pursuit of profits, and come up with an
economic framework in order to maximize profits
inside the workplace (a framework which actually
shares many insights with Marxism, if one takes
the time to examine it). And somebody else
comes up with Marxism, an economic framework
to try and understand the world from the point of
view of one of the classes that is subordinate, not
the capitalists.
Okay, what about anarchism--what is anarchism?
It's looking at the world from what angle? Who's
interest?
"People?" "A citizen?"
Yes, a citizen, that's what I would answer too, I
think. Some people would say from the perspective of all people, yes, but I think it is more from
the perspective of citizens, or, in other words: the
governed. That's really what's going on in anarchism, mostly.
But be aware, every one of the approaches we
have been discussing tries to broaden out and address everything at some point, at least in the
hands of sensible practitioners. But if you ask
about the heart of anarchism, for example, I think
it's about people as citizens as compared to governors. And reaction against the citizen or ordertaker role is what breeds anarchism. And feminism clearly is about women's position and interests. And nationalism, who are nationalists?
73
"Usually ethnic groups?"
Exactly so. Racial or ethnic groups or other cultural communities often become nationalist in
their approach. So there is presumably a dynamic
whereby humanity is divided into contesting
groups based on cultural allegiance and identity,
and the groups that are oppressed in this division
begin to see this type oppression as paramount
and to develop a theory that highlights it.
4
Look at these academics and their playing with
words. And, they imagine that because they use
these nw notions they fabricated, that they now
have created an all-explanatory theory of the universe and existence.
Of course, what they do is merely devise another
new set of interconnected, implied and derived notions.
74
Constructor Theory: Home
http://constructortheory.org
1st
2nd
Constructor Theory is a new approach to formulating fundamental laws in physics. Instead of describing the world in
terms of trajectories, initial conditions and ...
With Constructor Theory, Chiara Marletto
Invokes the ...
https://www.quantamagazine.org with-constructor-the...
5 days ago The goal of constructor theory is to rewrite
the laws of physics in terms of general principles that take
the form of counterfactuals statements, ...
75
Constructor theory - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org wiki Constructor_theory
Constructor theory is a proposal for a new mode of explanation in fundamental physics, first sketched out by David
Deutsch, a quantum physicist at the University ...
/Overview · M
/ otivations · O
/ utline · /References
How constructor theory solves the riddle of
life | Aeon Essays
https://aeon.co essays how-constructor-theory-solve...
76
1st16 Jul 2015 0 In constructor theory, physical
laws are formulated only in terms of which
tasks are possible (with arbitrarily high accuracy, reliability,
4.1
Let uncle Wiki summmarize it for us -
Constructor theory is a proposal for a new mode of explanation
in fundamental physics, first sketched out by David Deutsch,
[1][2]
a quantum physicist at the University of Oxford, in 2012.
Constructor theory expresses physical laws exclusively in terms of
what physical transformations, or tasks, are possible versus which
are impossible, and why. By allowing such counterfactual statements into fundamental physics, it allows new physical laws to be
expressed, for instance those of the constructor theory of informa[3][4]
tion.
Contents
1Overview
2Motivat
3Outline
The fundamental elements of the theory are tasks, i.e., the abstract
specifications of transformations in terms of input/output pairs of
77
attributes. A task is impossible if there is a law of physics that forbids its being performed with arbitrarily high accuracy, and possible otherwise. When it is possible, then a constructor for it can be
built, again with arbitrary accuracy and reliability. A constructor is
an entity which can cause the task to occur while retaining the ability to cause it again. Examples of constructors include a heat engine (a thermodynamic constructor), a catalyst (a chemical constructor) or a computer program controlling an automated factory (an exam[3][4]
ple of a programmable constructor).
78
The theory was developed by physicists David Deutsch and Chiara
[4][5]
Marletto.
It draws together ideas from diverse areas including thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, information theory and quantum computation.
Quantum mechanics and all other physical theories are claimed to
be subsidiary theories, and quantum information becomes a special
[4]
case of superinformation.
Chiara Marletto's constructor theory of life builds on constructor
[6][7]
theory.
Motivations
[
According to Deutsch, current theories of physics based on quantum mechanics do not adequately explain why some transformations between states of being are possible and some are not. For example, a drop of dye can dissolve in water but thermodynamics shows that the reverse transformation, of the dye clumping back
together, is effectively impossible. We do not know at a quantum
[1]
level why this should be so. Constructor theory provides an explanatory framework built on the transformations themselves, ra[3][4]
ther than the components.
Information has the property that a given statement might have said
something else, and one of these alternatives would not be true.
The untrue alternative is said to be "counterfactual". Conventional
physical theories do not model such counterfactuals. However, the
link between information and such physical ideas as the entropy in
a thermodynamic system is so strong that they are sometimes identified. For example, the area of a black hole's event horizon is a
measure both of the hole's entropy and of the information it contains. Constructor theory is an attempt to bridge this gap, providing
a physical model which can express counterfactuals, thus allowing
the laws of information and computation to be viewed as laws of
[3][4]
physics.
79
In constructor theory, a transformation or change is described as
a task. A constructor is a physical entity which is able to carry out
a given task repeatedly. A task is only possible if a constructor capable of carrying it out exists, otherwise it is impossible. To work
with constructor theory everything is expressed in terms of tasks.
The properties of information are then expressed as relationships
between possible and impossible tasks. Counterfactuals are thus
fundamental statements and the properties of information may be
[4]
described by physical laws. If a system has a set of attributes, the
set of permutations of these attributes is seen as a set of tasks.
A computation medium is a system whose attributes permute to always produce a possible task. The set of permutations, and hence
of tasks, is a computation set. If it is possible to copy the attributes
in the computation set, the computation medium is also an information medium.
The fundamental elements of the theory are tasks, i.e., the abstract
specifications of transformations in terms of input/output pairs of
attributes. A task is impossible if there is a law of physics that forbids its being performed with arbitrarily high accuracy, and possible otherwise. When it is possible, then a constructor for it can be
built, again with arbitrary accuracy and reliability. A constructor is
an entity which can cause the task to occur while retaining the ability to cause it again. Examples of constructors include a heat engine (a thermodynamic constructor), a catalyst (a chemical constructor) or a computer program controlling an automated factory
[3][4]
(an example of a programmable constructor).
The theory was developed by physicists David Deutsch and Chiara
[4][5]
Marletto.
It draws together ideas from diverse areas including thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, information theory and quantum computation.
Quantum mechanics and all other physical theories are claimed to
be subsidiary theories, and quantum information becomes a special
[4]
case of superinformation.
Chiara Marletto's constructor theory of life builds on constructor
[6][7]
theory.
80
According to Deutsch, current theories of physics based on quantum mechanics do not adequately explain why some transformations between states of being are possible and some are not. For example, a drop of dye can dissolve in water but thermodynamics shows that the reverse transformation, of the dye clumping back
together, is effectively impossible. We do not know at a quantum
[1]
level why this should be so. Constructor theory provides an explanatory framework built on the transformations themselves, ra[3][4]
ther than the components.
Information has the property that a given statement might have said
something else, and one of these alternatives would not be true.
The untrue alternative is said to be "counterfactual". Conventional
physical theories do not model such counterfactuals. However, the
link between information and such physical ideas as the entropy in
a thermodynamic system is so strong that they are sometimes identified. For example, the area of a black hole's event horizon is a
measure both of the hole's entropy and of the information it contains. Constructor theory is an attempt to bridge this gap, providing
a physical model which can express counterfactuals, thus allowing
the laws of information and computation to be viewed as laws of
[3][4]
physics.
In constructor theory, a transformation or change is described as
a task. A constructor is a physical entity which is able to carry out
a given task repeatedly. A task is only possible if a constructor capable of carrying it out exists, otherwise it is impossible. To work
with constructor theory everything is expressed in terms of tasks.
The properties of information are then expressed as relationships
between possible and impossible tasks. Counterfactuals are thus
fundamental statements and the properties of information may be
[4]
described by physical laws. If a system has a set of attributes, the
set of permutations of these attributes is seen as a set of tasks.
A computation medium is a system whose attributes permute to always produce a possible task. The set of permutations, and hence
of tasks, is a computation set. If it is possible to copy the attributes
in the computation set, the computation medium is also an information medium.
81
5
The geniuses imagine that they have just discovered the brave new world, while in fact they are
merely involved in much preliminary conceptual
analysis and clarification.
It reminds one of uncle Marx being carried away
wirh his identification of and then emphasis on the
employment of a system of seemingly interconnected ideas.
That lead to an -ism that even today haunts certain
parts of the globe and that has caused much suffering to many millions.
82
FIVE
In previous sections we saw that a question or
questioning might, as one of its features or functions, assist in the clarification of something and/
or the clarification of notions and ideas.
By means of this questions might aid in the understanding of a word, ideas, issues and problems.
The most simple and basic clarification will assist
in dealing with the meaning of a notion, sets of notions or synonyms
An example is, what is the meaning of philosophy
or what does consciousness means.
We might not be satisfied with the answer someone fives to our question about the meaning of a
certain notion. One reason might be because we
wish to know why s/he gives that answer. What are
the reasons s/he gives that answer.
What are the assumptions and pre-suppositions
/she makes and that underlie the answer given.
83
assumption - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com
https://www.vocabulary.com dictionary assumption
An assumption is something that you assume to be the
case, even without proof. For example, people might
make the assumption that you're a nerd if you wear glasses, even though that's not true. Or very nice.
Assumption | Definition of Assumption at
Dictionary.com
https://www.dictionary.com browse assumptions
· something taken for granted; a supposition: a correct assumption. · the act of taking for granted or supposing. · the
act of taking to or upon oneself. · the act of ...
84
84 Synonyms & Antonyms for ASSUMPTION | Thesaurus.com
https://www.thesaurus.com browse assumption
taking something for granted; something expected · nounassuming possession, power · nounarrogance ...
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264887647_What_is_an_Assumption
The concept of an 'assumption' is dis-cussed, and it is suggested that the psychologi-cal model implied by normal usage is
mislead-ing. A new model is proposed which distin-guishes between 'assumptions', as constraints upon the thinking process,
and 'postulates', as corresponding potential or actual propositional vocalizations. Some evidence for this model is provided,
and its implications, particularly for the process of assumption
identification, are dis-cussed. It is suggested that assumption
identifi-cation requires lateral thinking, and needs to be separated from problem-solving. The discussion is offered as an instance of an appropriate type of fusion of psychological and informal-logical approaches. It is probably no exaggeration to say
that everyone who has been involved in teach-ing or writing
about clear or critical think-ing, or in the analysis of everyday
reason-ing processes, has found it necessary to refer to 'assumptions' . If they have not used the word itself they will have
used closely related terms, such as 'preconceptions', or 'implicit
beliefs'. Ennis (1982, p.64) char-acterises his 'used assumptions'
as 'unstated reasons'. Some, indeed (Scriven, 1976, p. 43), see
the explication of unstated assumptions as necessary steps in
the analy-sis of an argument. The words 'assumption' and 'as-
85
sume' are also, of course, widely used in daily conversation, in a
variety of senses. Writers frequently signal some con-cern about
the universal comprehensibil-ity of these terms by offering ostensive definitions (Moore, & Parker, 1986) but, when one considers
their ubiquity, there has been surprisingly little explicit analysis of
the concepts. Ennis (1982) distinguishes two classes of 'assumption', those which he calls, as mentioned above, 'used assumptions', which are assumptions which the argument creator
'uses', or 'makes' in forming the argument, and those which he
calls 'needed assumptions', which the argument analyst judges
to be 'required', in some sense, if the argument is to be sound.
The following discussion is an attempt to clarify the na-ture and
role of the former of these classes of assumption. The concept
of a 'needed assumption' is also in some need of clari-fication,
especially since much of the work of informal logicians seems to
be con-cerned with them, but that will not be at-tempted here, as
the issues such an attempt would evoke are quite different, and
war-rant separate consideration. It may be as-sumed, then, that
the word 'assumption', in our current discussion, means 'used
as-sumption' .
What we are presented with here is of course the
usual conceptaul analysis, and attempt at conceptual clarification.
As suggested in previous chapters, such analysis
quickly leads to the development of speculation
and basic practices inattempts at theorizing.
86
Assumptions - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org title=Assumptions
Assumptions. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Redirect page. Jump to navigation Jump to search. Redirect
to: Assumption. Retrieved from ...
Tacit assumption - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org wiki Tacit_assumption
A tacit assumption or implicit assumption is an assumption that underlies a logical argument, course of action, decision, or judgment that is not explicitly voiced ..
Axiom - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org wiki Axiom
An axiom, postulate or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. The word ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presupposition
87
Contents
1Negation of a sentence containing a presupposition
2Projection of presuppositions
3Presupposition triggers
3.1Definite descriptions
3.2Factive verbs
3.3Implicative verbs
3.4Change of state or continuation of state verbs
3.5Iteratives
3.6Temporal clauses
3.7Cleft sentences
3.8Comparisons and contrasts
3.9Counterfactual conditionals
3.10Questions
3.11Possessive case
4Accommodation of presuppositions
5Presupposition in critical discourse analysis
Assumptions and pre-suppositions can be
viewed as problematic and one of the reasons
for this is that they can be related to, cause or
hide biases and fallacies.
Bias - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org wiki Bias
88
Bias is a disproportionate weight in favor of or against an
idea or thing, usually in a way that is closed-minded, prejudicial, or unfair. Biases can be innate or learned. People may develop biases for or against an individual, a
group, or a belief. In science and engineering, a bias is a
systematic error.
/Types of bias · /Cognitive biases · C
/ ontextual biases · B
/ iases
in academia
Here are more on biases Bias is a disproportionate weight in favor of or against an idea or
thing, usually in a way that is closed-minded, prejudicial, or unfair.
Biases can be innate or learned. People may develop biases for or
[1]
against an individual, a group, or a belief. In science and engineering, a bias is a systematic error. Statistical bias results from an unfair sampling of a population, or from an estimation process that does
[2]
not give accurate results on average.
89
Contents
1Etymology
2Types of bias
2.1Cognitive biases
2.1.1Anchoring
2.1.2Apophenia
2.1.3Attribution bias
2.1.4Confirmation bias
2.1.5Framing
2.1.6Halo effect and horn effect
2.1.7Self-serving bias
2.1.8Status quo bias
2.2Conflicts of interest
2.2.1Bribery
2.2.2Favoritism
2.2.3Lobbying
2.2.4Regulatory issues
2.2.5Shilling
2.3Statistical biases
2.3.1Forecast bias
2.3.2Observer-expectancy effect
2.3.3Reporting bias & social desirability bias
2.3.4Selection bias
2.4Prejudices
2.4.1Ageism
2.4.2Classism
2.4.3Lookism
2.4.4Racism
2.4.5Sexism
90
3Contextual biases
3.1Biases in academia
3.1.1Academic bias
3.1.2Experimenter bias
3.1.3Funding bias
3.1.4Full text on net bias
3.1.5Publication bias
3.2Biases in law enforcement
3.2.1Driving while black
3.2.2Racial profiling
3.2.3Victim blaming
3.3Biases in media
3.3.1Agenda setting
3.3.2Gatekeeping
3.3.3Sensationalism
3.4Other contexts
3.4.1Educational bias
3.4.2Inductive bias
3.4.3Insider trading
3.4.4Match fixing
A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty
reasoning, or "wrong moves" in the construction
of an argument. A fallacious argument may be
91
deceptive by appearing to be better than it really is.
Fallacy - Wikipedia
A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or
[1]
[2][3]
A fal"wrong moves" in the construction of an argument.
lacious argument may be deceptive by appearing to be better
than it really is. Some fallacies are committed intentionally
to manipulate or persuade by deception, while others are committed unintentionally due to carelessness or ignorance.
The soundness of legal arguments depends on the context in
[4]
which the arguments are made.
Fallacies are commonly divided into "formal" and "informal". A formal
fallacy is a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders
the argument invalid, while an informal fallacy originates in an error in
[5]
reasoning other than an improper logical form. Arguments containing
[6]
informal fallacies may be formally valid, but still fallacious.
A special case is a mathematical fallacy, an intentionally invalid mathematical proof, often with the error subtle and somehow concealed.
Mathematical fallacies are typically crafted and exhibited for educational purposes, usually taking the form of spurious proofs of obvious contradictions.
92
Contents
1Overview
2Systems of classification
2.1Aristotle
2.2Whately's grouping
2.3Other systems of classification
3Formal fallacy
3.1Common examples
3.1.1Ecological fallacy
3.2Fallacy fork
4Informal fallacy
4.1Faulty generalization
4.1.1Hasty generalization
4.2Relevance fallacy
4.2.1Argument from silence
4.3Examples of informal fallacies
4.3.1Post hoc (false cause)
4.3.2Slippery slope
4.3.3False analogy
4.3.4Straw man Fallacy
5Measurement fallacy
5.1Knowledge value measurement fallacy
93
6Intentional fallacy
7Assessment: pragmatic theory
8See also
9References
10Further reading
10.1Historical texts
94
SIX
Let us now move on to evidence.
What would be suffieient evidence, appropriate
evidence, adequate evidence for different situations, disciplines, domains and contexts?
What are the different standardsand criteria for evidence in these contexts?
the available body of facts or information indicating whether
a belief or proposition is true or valid.
"the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination
substantiation
that which tends to prove or disprove something;
ground for belief; proof. ... data presented to a court
or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may
include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
95
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an as[1]
sertion, because evident things are undoubted. There are two kind of
evidence: intellectual evidence (the obvious, the evident) and empirical
evidence (proofs).
The mentioned support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of
evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion.
At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.
In law, rules of evidence govern the types of evidence that are admissible in a legal proceeding. Types of legal evidence include testimo[2]
ny, documentary evidence, and physical evidence. The parts of a legal case that are not in controversy are known, in general, as the "facts
of the case." Beyond any facts that are undisputed, a judge or jury is
usually tasked with being a trier of fact for the other issues of a case.
Evidence and rules are used to decide questions of fact that are disputed, some of which may be determined by the legal burden of proof relevant to the case. Evidence in certain cases (e.g. capital crimes) must
be more compelling than in other situations (e.g. minor civil disputes),
which drastically affects the quality and quantity of evidence necessary
to decide a case.
Scientific evidence consists of observations and experimental results
that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the scientific
method.
In philosophy, the study of evidence is closely tied to epistemology,
which considers the nature of knowledge and how it can be acquired.
1Intellectual evidence (the evident)
2Empirical evidence (in science)
In scientific research evidence is accumulated through observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world, or which are
created as experiments in a laboratory or other controlled conditions. Scientific evidence usually goes towards supporting or rejecting a hypothesis.
The burden of proof is on the person making a contentious claim.
96
Within science, this translates to the burden resting on presenters
of a paper, in which the presenters argue for their specific findings.
This paper is placed before a panel of judges where the presenter
must defend the thesis against all challenges.
When evidence is contradictory to predicted expectations, the evidence and the ways of making it are often closely scrutinized
(see experimenter's regress) and only at the end of this process is
the hypothesis rejected: this can be referred to as 'refutation of the
hypothesis'. The rules for evidence used by science are collected
systematically in an attempt to avoid the bias inherent to anecdotal
evidence.
3Law
In law, the production and presentation of evidence depend first
on establishing on whom the burden of proof lies. Admissible
evidence is that which a court receives and considers for the
purposes of deciding a particular case. Two primary burden-ofproof considerations exist in law. The first is on whom the burden rests. In many, especially Western, courts, the burden of
proof is placed on the prosecution in criminal cases and the
plaintiff in civil cases. The second consideration is the degree
of certitude proof must reach, depending on both the quantity
and quality of evidence. These degrees are different for criminal
and civil cases, the former requiring evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, the latter considering only which side has the preponderance of evidence, or whether the proposition is more
likely true or false. The decision-maker, often a jury, but sometimes a judge decides whether the burden of proof has been fulfilled.
After deciding who will carry the burden of proof, the evidence is
first gathered and then presented before the court:
97
3.1Collection
3.2Presentation
3.3Burden of proof
4Types
Types
[edit]
Digital evidence
Personal experience
Physical evidence
Relationship evidence
Scientific evidence
Testimonial evidence
Trace evidence
Argument
Belief
Empiricism
Evidence packaging
Falsifiability
Logical positivism
Mathematical proof
Proof (truth)
Reason
Skepticism
Theory of justification
Validity (logic)
Evidence at PhilPapers
Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). "Evidence". Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy.
"Evidence". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Evidence at the Indiana Philosophy Ontology Project
ASTM E141 Standard Practice for Acceptance of Evidence
98
Based on the Results of Probability Sampling
"Evidence" . Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). 1911.
https://philpapers.org/browse/evidence
The notion of evidence features importantly in epistemology and
philosophy of science. There are three primary questions that a theory of evidence must address. The constitution question asks: What
is the nature of evidence? A major divide in answers to the constitution question is between those who think that all evidence is propositional and those who think that some evidence is non-propositional. The possession question asks: When does someone possess
a piece of information as evidence? Restrictive views of evidence
possession hold that one has as evidence only information that one
is consciously entertaining. More inclusive views of evidence possession hold that one1s evidence includes non-occurrent information, such as stored memories. Lastly, a theory of evidence must address the positive support question. In philosophy of science and
formal epistemology the positive support question is: When is a hypothesis confirmed by evidence? In contemporary epistemology
the positive support question is: When is a belief justified by evidence?
Evidence and Knowledge (426)
Evidentialism* (293)
Perceptual Evidence* (104)
The Problem of Old Evidence* (43)
Underdetermination of Theory by Data* (404 | 6)
Evidence, Misc (337)
History/traditions: Evidence
Husserl: Evidence (33)
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence/
The concept of evidence is central to both epistemology
and the philosophy of science. Of course, 2evidence3 is
hardly a philosopher's term of art: it is not only, or even
99
primarily, philosophers who routinely speak of evidence,
but also lawyers and judges, historians and scientists, investigative journalists and reporters, as well as the members of numerous other professions and ordinary folk in
the course of everyday life. The concept of evidence
would thus seem to be on firmer pre-theoretical ground
than various other concepts which enjoy similarly central
standing within philosophy. (Contrast, for example, the
epistemologist's quasi-technical term 2epistemic justification3.)
When one compares philosophical accounts of evidence
with the way the concept is often employed in non-philosophical contexts, however, a tension soon emerges.
Consider first the kinds of things which non-philosophers are apt to count as evidence. For the forensics expert, evidence might consist of fingerprints on a gun, a
bloodied knife, or a semen-stained dress: evidence is,
paradigmatically, the kind of thing which one might
place in a plastic bag and label 2Exhibit A3. Thus, a criminal defense attorney might float the hypothesis that the
evidence which seems to incriminate his client was planted by a corrupt law enforcement official or hope for it to
be misplaced by a careless clerk. For an archaeologist,
evidence is the sort of thing which one might dig up
from the ground and carefully send back to one's laboratory for further analysis. Similarly, for the historian, evidence might consist of hitherto overlooked documents
recently discovered in an archive or in an individual's
personal library.[1] Reflection on examples such as these
naturally suggests that evidence consists paradigmatically of physical objects, or perhaps, physical objects arranged in certain ways. For presumably, physical objects are
the sort of thing which one might place in a plastic bag,
dig up from the ground, send to a laboratory, or discover
100
among the belongings of an individual of historical interest.
However natural such a picture might be, it is at least
somewhat difficult to reconcile with historically prominent philosophical accounts of the nature of evidence.
Russell, the greatest empiricist of the first half of the
twentieth century, tended to think of evidence as sense
data, mental items of one's present consciousness with
which one is immediately acquainted. In this, he stood
squarely within the tradition of classical empiricism.
Quine, the greatest empiricist of the second half of the
century, maintained throughout his career that evidence
consisted of the stimulation of one's sensory receptors.[2] The logical positivists held that whatever evidence there is for a given scientific theory is afforded
by observation statements or 2protocol sentence3, linguistic entities with suitably-restricted contents; the precise
nature of the restrictions became a vigorously contested
matter within the tradition itself.[3] According to one recent and influential study, one's evidence consists of the
totality of propositions that one knows (Williamson
2000). According to another, one's evidence consists exclusively of one's current mental states (Conee and Feldman 2004). Within contemporary confirmation theory, a
prominent version of Bayesianism is naturally understood as identifying one's evidence with those beliefs of
which one is psychologically certain. Of course, the suggestion that one might place sense data, sensory receptor
stimulations, known propositions, or one's current mental
states in a plastic bag (or dig them up from the ground,
or send them to a laboratory, or 4) is of dubious intelligibility. From the perspective of much ordinary thought
and talk about evidence, much philosophical theorizing
about evidence would seem to embody a particularly
101
grotesque category mistake.
Moreover, it is not simply that the accounts of evidence
that have been advanced by philosophers stand in at least
some prima facie tension with much that is said and
thought about evidence outside of philosophy. As even
the cursory survey offered above makes clear, philosophers themselves have offered quite divergent theories of
what sorts of things are eligible to serve as evidence.
What might account for such discrepancies?
One possibility is the following. Both in and outside of
philosophy, the concept of evidence has often been
called upon to fill a number of distinct roles. Although
some of these roles are complementary, others stand in at
least some measure of tension with one another. Indeed,
as we will see below, it is far from obvious that any one
thing could play all of the diverse roles that evidence has
at various times been expected to play. Different theories
about the nature of evidence might thus naturally emerge
from different emphases on the competing demands that
have been placed on the concept. In what follows, I survey some of the theoretical roles that the concept of evidence has been asked to play and explore some of the relations among them.
1. Evidence as That Which Justifies Belief
2. Rational Thinkers Respect Their Evidence
3. Evidence as a Guide to Truth: Evidence as Sign,
Symptom, or Mark
In general, the idea that the probability calculus provides the key to understanding the concept of evidence has found greater favor among philosophers of
102
science than among traditional epistemologists. In the
next and final section, we turn to a cluster of themes
that have also been much emphasized by philosophers
of science, themes which came to the fore as a result
of philosophical reflection upon the role that evidence
plays within scientific practice itself.
4. Objectivity, Publicity, and Intersubjectivity: Evidence as Neutral Arbiter
It is natural to suppose that the concept of evidence is
intimately related to the cognitive desideratum of objectivity. According to this line of thought, individuals
and institutions are objective to the extent that they allow their views about what is the case or what ought
to be done to be guided by the evidence, as opposed
to (say) the typically distorting influences of ideological dogma, prejudice in favor of one's kin, or texts
whose claim to authority is exhausted by their being
venerated by tradition. To the extent that individuals
and institutions are objective in this sense, we should
expect their views to increasingly converge over time:
as shared evidence accumulates, consensus tends to
emerge with respect to formerly disputed questions.
Objective inquiry is evidence-driven inquiry, which
makes for intersubjective agreement among inquirers.[26] Thus, it is widely thought that the reason why
the natural sciences exhibit a degree of consensus that
is conspicuously absent from many others fields is
that the former are evidence-driven5and therefore,
objective5in ways that the latter are not.
According to this picture, a central function of evidence
103
is to serve as a neutral arbiter among rival theories and
their adherents. Whatever disagreements might exist at
the level of theory, if those who disagree are objective,
then the persistence of their disagreement is an inherently fragile matter, for it is always hostage to the emergence of evidence which decisively resolves the dispute
in one direction or the other. Our ability to arrive at consensus in such circumstances is thus constrained only by
our resourcefulness and ingenuity in generating such evidence (e.g., by designing and executing crucial experiments) and by the generosity of the world in offering it
up.
Here then we see another context in which theoretical
demands are placed on the concept of evidence that
seem to pull in different directions. On the one hand,
it is thought central to the concept of evidence that
evidence is by its very nature the kind of thing that
can generate rational convergence of opinion in virtue
of being shared by multiple individuals. This encourages the idea that any genuine piece of evidence can in
principle be grasped by multiple individuals; anything
which cannot be so grasped is either not genuine evidence or is at best a degenerate species thereof. On
the other hand, evidence is taken to be that which justifies belief. And it seems that many of the beliefs
which individuals hold about their own mental lives
on the basis of introspection are justified by factors
with respect to which they enjoy privileged access.
Notably, the positivists' embrace of the idea that protocol sentences refer exclusively to publicly-observable
physical objects and events was accompanied by an
embrace of behaviorism in psychology.[40] It is characteristic of behaviorism to denigrate the idea that the
deliverances of introspection can constitute genuine
104
evidence; on this combination of views then, the thesis that all evidence consists of that which can be
shared by multiple observers is upheld. For those who
reject behaviorism, however, the idea that at least
some evidence does not meet this condition is a more
difficult one to resist.
https://iep.utm.edu/evidence/
105
Evidence
The concept of evidence is crucial to epistemology and
the philosophy of science. In epistemology, evidence
is often taken to be relevant to justified belief, where
the latter, in turn, is typically thought to be necessary
for knowledge. Arguably, then, an understanding of
evidence is vital for appreciating the two dominant
objects of epistemological concern, namely, knowledge and justified belief. In the philosophy of science,
evidence is taken to be what confirms or refutes scientific theories, and thereby constitutes our grounds
for rationally deciding between competing pictures of
the world. In view of this, an understanding of evidence would be indispensable for comprehending the
proper functioning of the scientific enterprise.
For these reasons and others, a philosophical appreciation of evidence becomes pressing. Section 1 examines what might be called the nature of evidence. It
considers the theoretical roles that evidence plays,
with a view towards determining what sort of entity
evidence can be6an experience, a proposition, an object, and so on. In doing so, it also considers the extent to which evidence is implicated in justified belief
(and by extension, knowledge, if knowledge requires
justified belief). Then, section 2 considers the evidential relationship, or the relation between two things by
virtue of which one counts as evidence for the other;
and it explores the nature of their relationship, that
is, whether the relationship is deductive, explanatory,
or probabilistic. Finally, equipped with this theoretical background, section 3 looks at some of the important problems and paradoxes that have occupied
those working in the theory of evidence.
106
Table of Contents
1stThe Nature of Evidence: What Is It and What Does It
Do?
A
a
Propositional Evidence in Explanatory, Probabilistic
and Deductive Reasoning
b
Can Experiences Be Evidence? The Regress Argument
c
Evidence and Justified Belief: A Closer Look
d
2ndTheories of the Evidential Relation
A
a
Probabilistic Theories
b
Semi-Probabilistic Theories
c
Qualitative Theories
I
i
Hypothetico-Deductivism
ii
Evidence as a Positive Instance
iii
Bootstrapping
iv
v
3rdSome Problems of Evidence
A
a
The Ravens Paradox
I
Hempel7s 8Solution9
i
ii
A Bayesian Solution
iii
An Error-Statistical Solution
iv
b
The Grue Paradox
I
i
Goodman7s Solution
ii
Achinstein7s Solution
iii
c
Underdetermination of Theory by Evidence
107
I
i
Underdetermination and Holism: the DuhemQuine Problem
A Bootstrapping Solution
A Bayesian Solution
ii
iii
iv
v
4thReferences and Further Reading
1. The Nature of Evidence:
What Is It and What Does It
Do?
When we think about examples of evidence from everyday life, we tend to think of evidence, in the first
place, as consisting of an object or set of objects. Consider evidence that might be found at a crime scene: a
gun, a bloody knife, a set of fingerprints, or hair, fiber
or DNA samples. The same might be said of fossil evidence, or evidence in medicine, such as when an Xray is evidence that a patient has a tumor, or koplic
spots as evidence that a patient has measles. Yet we
also consider such things as testimony and scientific
studies to be evidence, examples difficult to classify as
:objects; since they apparently involve linguistic entities. Possibilities proliferate when we turn to philosophical accounts of evidence, where we find more exotic views on what sort of thing evidence can be. In
philosophy, evidence has been taken to consist of
such things as experiences, propositions, observation-reports, mental states, states of affairs, and even
physiological events, such as the stimulation of one<s
sensory surfaces.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Ency-
108
clop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Evidence
EVIDENCE (Lat. evidentia, evideri, to appear clearly), a term
which may be defined briefly as denoting the facts presented to
the mind of a person for the purpose of enabling him to decide a
disputed question. Evidence in the widest sense includes all
such facts, and reference may be made to the article LOGIC for
the science or art of dealing with the proper way of drawing
correct conclusions and the nature of proof. In a narrower
sense, however, evidence includes in English law only such
facts as are allowed to be so presented in the course of judicial
proceedings. Thus we say that a fact is not evidence, meaning
thereby that it is not admissible as evidence in accordance with
the rules of English law. The law of legal evidence is part of the
law of procedure. It determines the kinds of evidence which
may be produced in judicial proceedings, and regulates the
mode in which, and the conditions under which, evidence may
be produced and tested.
Bibliography
Academic Tools
Other Internet Resources
Related Entries
109
SEVEN
In certain situations, contexts and circumstancs
and stages of an investigation we might wish to enquire about the reason of something, some activity,
action, behaviour, process, etc.
Reasons account
cause.
ground.
grounds.
interest.
justification.
motive.
rationale.
rationalization.
110
More items...
178 Synonyms & Antonyms for REASON |
Thesaurus.com
oun: reasons
1st
2nd
1.
3rda cause, explanation, or justification for an action or
event.
4th"she asked him to return, but didn't give a reason"
5thSimilar:
6thcause
7thgrounds
8thground
9thbasis
10thrationale
11thmotive
12thmotivation
13thpurpose
14thpoint
15thaim
111
16thintention
17thobjective
18thgoal
19thoccasion
20thimpetus
21stinducement
22ndincentive
23rdexplanation
24thjustification
25thcase
26thargument
27thdefence
28thapology
29thvindication
30thexcuse
31stpretext
32ndrationalization
33rdwarrant
112
34ththe whys and wherefore
35th
36th
2.
37ththe power of the mind to think, understand, and form
judgements logically.
38th"there is a close connection between reason and
emotion"
39thSimilar:
40thrationality
41stlogic
42ndlogical thought
43rdscientific thinking
44threasoning
45ththought
46thcognition
47ththe mind
48thintellect
49thintelligence
50thintellectuality
113
51stratiocination
3rd person present: reasons
1st
2ndthink, understand, and form judgements logically.
3rd"humans do not reason entirely from facts"
4th
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason
114
Contents
1Etymology and related words
2Philosophical history
2.1Classical philosophy
2.2Islamic and Christian Philosophy
2.3Subject-centred reason in early modern philosophy
2.4Substantive and formal reason
2.5The critique of reason
3Reason compared to related concepts
3.1Compared to logic
3.2Reason compared to cause-and-effect thinking, and symbolic
thinking
3.3Reason, imagination, mimesis, and memory
3.4Logical reasoning methods and argumentation
3.4.1Deductive reasoning
3.4.2Inductive reasoning
3.4.3Analogical reasoning
3.4.4Abductive reasoning
3.4.5Fallacious reasoning
4Traditional problems raised concerning reason
4.1Reason versus truth, and "first principles"
4.2Reason versus emotion or passion
4.3Reason versus faith or tradition
5Reason in particular fields of study
5.1Reason in political philosophy and ethics
5.2Psychology
5.2.1Behavioral experiments on human reasoning
5.2.2Developmental studies of children's reasoning
5.2.3Neuroscience of reasoning
115
5.3Computer science
5.3.1Automated reasoning
5.3.2Meta-reasoning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason_(argument)
Types of reason
2Normative reasons
2.1Epistemic vs. practical reasons
2.1.1Epistemic reasons in argumentation
In philosophy, it's common to distinguish between three kinds
[2]
of reason.
Normative or justifying reasons are often said to be "considerations which count in favor" of some state of affairs (this is, at any
rate, a common view, notably held by T. M. Scanlon and Derek
[3][4]
Parfit).
Explanatory reasons are considerations which serve to explain
why things have happenedthey are reasons events occur, or why
states of affairs are the way they are. In other words, "reason" can
also be a synonym for "cause". For example, a reason a car starts is
that its ignition is turned. In the context of explaining the actions of
beings who act for reasons (i.e., rational agents), these are called motivating reasonse.g., the reason Bill went to college was to
learn; i.e., that he would learn was his motivating reason. At least
where a rational agent is acting rationally, her motivating reasons
are those considerations which she believes count in favor of her so
acting.
116
Normative reasons
[edit]
[5]
Some philosophers (one being John Broome ) view normative reasons as the same as "explanations of ought facts". Just as explanatory reasons explain why some descriptive fact obtains (or came to
obtain), normative reasons on this view explain why some normative facts obtain, i.e., they explain why some state of affairs ought
to come to obtain (e.g., why someone should act or why some
event ought to take place).
Epistemic vs. practical reasons
[edit]
Philosophers, when discussing reasoning that is influenced
by norms, commonly make a distinction between theoretical rea[6]
son and practical reason. These are capacities that draw on epistemic reasons (matters of fact and of explanation) or practical reasons (reasons for action) respectively. Epistemic reasons (also
called theoretical or evidential reasons) are considerations which
count in favor of believing some proposition to be true. Practical
reasons are considerations which count in favor of some action or
the having of some attitude (or at least, count in favor of wanting
or trying to bring those actions or attitudes about).
Epistemic reasons in argumentation
117
8
Through the entire process of questioning we will
most likely consider alternatives. Alternative and
more appropriate concepts, theories, models, presuppositions and assumptions, evidence etc.
In this context we deal with alternative paradigms,
perpsectives, points of view and frames of reference.
1
Paradigm | Definition of Paradigm by Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com dictionary paradi...
Definition of paradigm · 1 : example, pattern especially : an
outstandingly clear or typical example or archetype = · 2 :
an example of a conjugation or declension ...
118
paradigm - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com
https://www.vocabulary.com dictionary paradigm
A paradigm is a standard, perspective, or set of ideas.
A paradigm is a way of looking at something. The
word paradigm comes up a lot in the academic, scientific,
and business worlds. A new paradigm in business could
mean a new way of reaching customers and making money.
PARADIGM | meaning in the Cambridge
English Dictionary
https://dictionary.cambridge.org dictionary paradigm
paradigm | Business English ... a set of theories that ex-
plain the way a particular subject is understood at a particular time: The TV network claimed ...
119
Paradigm - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org wiki Paradigm
IIn science and philosophy, a paradigm (/>pær?da@m/) is a
distinct set of concepts or thought patterns, including theories, research methods, postulates, and standards for what
constitutes legitimate contributions to a field.
Contents
1Etymology
2Scientific paradigm
3Paradigm shifts
3.1Paradigm paralysis
4Incommensurability
5Subsequent developments
5.1Imre Lakatos and research programmes
5.2Larry Laudan: Dormant anomalies, fading credibility, and research traditions
/Etymology · S
/ cientific paradigm · /Paradigm shifts · I/ n social
sciences
120
6.2 Paradigms, theories, and how they
shape a researcher's ...
https://scientificinquiryinsocialwork.pressbooks.com 6...
Paradigms in social science. For our purposes, we'll define paradigm as a way of viewing the world (or Aanalytic
lensB akin to a set of glasses) ...
Paradigms & Paradigm Shifts
http://mason.gmu.edu UMD_comm470 readings a...
A paradigm is essentially a particular view of the
world. Paradigms emerge to provide an overall framework
for understanding particular phenomena. The ...
121
What Is A Paradigm Shift, Anyway? : 13.7:
Cosmos And ...
https://www.npr.org sections 2016/07/18 what-is-a-p...
18 Jul 2016 : a theory or a group of ideas about how
something should be done, made, or thought about. Accordingly, a paradigm shift is defined as "an ...
Thomas Kuhn (Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy)
https://plato.stanford.edu entries thomas-kuhn
by A Bird · 2004 · Cited by 762 The functions of a paradigm are to supply puzzles for scientists to solve and to provide the tools for their solution. A crisis in science arises .
2
Your perspective is the way you see something. If
you think that toys corrupt children's minds, then from
your perspective a toy shop is an evil place. Perspective has a Latin root meaning "look through" or
"perceive," and all the meanings of perspective have something to do with looking.
122
123
perspective - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com
https://www.vocabulary.com dictionary perspective
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective-taking
Perspective-taking
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
124
Perspective-taking is the act of perceiving a situation or understanding a concept from an alternative point of view, such as that of another
individual.
[1]
There is a vast amount of scientific literature that has
looked at perspective-taking and suggests that it is crucial to human de[2]
velopment,
[3][4]
comes.
and that it may lead to a variety of beneficial out-
Perspective-taking is related to other theories and concepts
[5]
including theory of mind
[6]
and empathy.
Both theory and research
have suggested ages when children are able to begin to perspective[2][7]
take and how that ability develops over time.
Research has also
suggested that there may be deficits in people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
[8]
[9]
and autism
on the ability of individuals to en-
gage in perspective-taking. Additionally, studies have been conducted
to assess the brain regions involved in perspective-taking. These studies suggest that several regions may be involved, including the pre[10]
frontal cortex and the precuneus.
Additionally, studies suggest that
perspective-taking may be possible in some non-human animals.
Contents
1Definition
1.1Related terms
1.1.1Theory of mind
1.1.2Empathy
[11]
125
2In development
2.1Visual
2.2Conceptual
3Brain regions
3.1Visual
3.2Conceptual
4Deficits
4.1Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
4.2Autism
5Outcomes
5.1Benefit
5.2Empathy
5.3Sympathy and caring
5.4Creativity
5.5Bias and stereotype reduction
5.6In disagreements
126
3
Frame of reference definition and meaning
| Collins English ...
https://www.collinsdictionary.com dictionary frame-...
A frame of reference is a particular set of beliefs or ideas on
which you base your judgment of things. We know we're
dealing with someone with a different frame of reference.
Frame of reference - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org wiki Frame_of_referencce
In physics, a frame of reference (or reference frame) consists of an abstract coordinate system and the set of physical
reference points that uniquely fix (locate ...
/Different aspects of "frame... · O
/ bservational frames of... ·
/Examples of inertial...
127
Frames of Reference C Isaac Physics
https://isaacphysics.org concepts cp_frame_reference
The different observations occur because the two observers
are in different frames of reference. A frame of refer-
ence is a set of coordinates that can be used to ..It
is useful to develop and employ different points of
view, frames of reference, perspectives and paradigms. There are good reasons for this, for example alternatives will enable one to notice different
items, obtain different insights , to identify the advantages of alternatives, to make comparisons, to
develop evaluations, to become clearer about a
point of view, to select the most appropriate one,..
Different aspects of "frame of reference"
[
128
The need to distinguish between the various meanings of "frame of
reference" has led to a variety of terms. For example, sometimes
the type of coordinate system is attached as a modifier, as in Cartesian frame of reference. Sometimes the state of motion is emphasized, as in rotating frame of reference. Sometimes the way it transforms to frames considered as related is emphasized as in Galilean
frame of reference. Sometimes frames are distinguished by the
scale of their observations, as in macroscopic and microscopic
[1]
frames of reference.
In this article, the term observational frame of reference is used
when emphasis is upon the state of motion rather than upon the coordinate choice or the character of the observations or observational apparatus. In this sense, an observational frame of reference allows study of the effect of motion upon an entire family of coordinate systems that could be attached to this frame. On the other
hand, a coordinate system may be employed for many purposes
where the state of motion is not the primary concern. For example,
a coordinate system may be adopted to take advantage of the symmetry of a system. In a still broader perspective, the formulation of
many problems in physics employs generalized coordinates, normal modes or eigenvectors, which are only indirectly related to
space and time. It seems useful to divorce the various aspects of a
reference frame for the discussion below. We therefore take observational frames of reference, coordinate systems, and observational
equipment as independent concepts, separated as below:
An observational frame (such as an inertial frame or non-inertial frame of reference) is a physical concept related to state of
motion.
A coordinate system is a mathematical concept, amounting to a
[2]
choice of language used to describe observations. Consequently, an observer in an observational frame of reference can
choose to employ any coordinate system (Cartesian, polar, curvilinear, generalized, D) to describe observations made from
that frame of reference. A change in the choice of this coordinate system does not change an observer's state of motion, and
so does not entail a change in the observer's observational frame of reference. This viewpoint can be found elsewhere as
[3]
well. Which is not to dispute that some coordinate systems
may be a better choice for some observations than are others.
129
Choice of what to measure and with what observational apparatus is a matter separate from the observer's state of motion and
choice of coordinate system.
130
9
Other aspects of questions and questioning include
possible implications and consequences of a concept, and in different contexts,
meta-questions about a question, its nature, details,
etc.
inferences, interpretations, comparisons, evaluations and conclusions..
What is a comparison question?
In fact, comparison questions require a higher level
of thinking and processing. When you compare two
(or more things) you are writing statements of similarity or difference about common features or processes
such as Apples and lemons differ in colour (common
feature): apples are red, lemons are yellow!.
131
Answering comparison questions: Make
the marker SEE what
...http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~iemerson/Study%20Guide/AnsweringComparisonQuestions.html
Specify the Key Evaluation Questions |
Better Evaluation
https://www.betterevaluation.org frame specify_key...
For whom, in what ways and in what circumstances? What
unintended outcomes (positive and negative) were produced? To what extent can changes be ...
Effectiveness: To what extent is the program a...
https://programs.online.american.edu/online-graduate-certificates/project-monitoring/resources/asking-program-evaluation-questions
https://www.evalacademy.com articles how-to-write...
1 What are evaluation questions? ... Evaluation questions focus data collection. They are what our stakeholders
need to answer. When they have the ...
...
Questions that ask us to Draw Conclusions:
What conclusion can you draw?
132
We can conclude that ____
What probably happened?
What might you conclude?
https://www.esmonline.org/Page/3760
133
Mrs. Donahue's Site / Drawing Conclusions and Making ...
Drawing Conclusions and
Making Inferences
DRAWING CONCLUSIONS AND
MAKING INFERENCES
Details are sometimes not clearly stated or explained in a reading passage. You must figure
out some information on your own. Whenever
you figure out something that is not told in a
reading passage, you are drawing a conclusion or making an inference. We draw conclusions based on information that we have. When
we draw conclusions the author does not tell us
what conclusion to draw. We have to make an
educated guess about something based on the information that is contained within the passage.
Pay attention to the details in a reading passage. You can use these details to figure out
information that is not clearly stated or explained.
Use the details from the reading passage, as
well as what you know from your own life, to
draw a conclusion or to make an inference.
134
When you read, many times you must figure
out things on your own. The author doesn t always tell you everything. For example, you
might read these sentences: EThe moon cast an
eerie glow in Jake s room. Suddenly, he saw a
shadow by the window. Jake sat up in bed, frozen with fear.F From what the author has written, you can tell that it is probably nighttime,
because the moon is out and Jake is in
bed. Questions about drawing conclusions often contain the key words you can tell or probably.
Questions that ask us to Draw Conclusions:
What conclusion can you draw?
We can conclude that ____
What probably happened?
What might you conclude?
Strategy for Drawing Conclusions:
When you are asked to draw a conclusion,
the conclusion is not stated in the passage. After you read the passage, decide
which answer makes the most sense to you.
Eliminate the choices that do not make sense
to you, based on what is in the passage.
Select the best choice even if you are not certain.
135
Appendix
(i)
Socratic Method
The Socratic Method
The Socratic Method is a form of
argumentative (but not angry) dialogue. It takes
place between individuals.
It is said to stir the cogs of critical thinking into
motion.
It relies on a stream of questions.
These questions are intended to stretch the mind ,
in ways that it is not used to
0 which
often means critical thinking,
136
for all of us.
Socrates never sat down and
formalized the method in writing, but
today we can find them categorized into
6 concepts or types of questions:
· Questions for clarification:
Why do
you say we need feature X? Could you
phrase that another way?
· Questions that probe assumptions:
What else can we assume? Is everyone
assuming the same thing?
· Questions that probe reasons and
evidence: What do you think causes the
need for feature X? How did this
situation come about?
· Questions about viewpoints and
perspectives: What could be an
alternative to feature X? Is there anyone
here who sees the project in a different
way?
· Questions that probe implications and
137
consequences: What are the consequences of as-
sumptions we are
making? If this and that is true, then
what else must be true?
· Questions about the question itself:
Why is this question (problem, challenge)
important? Can we break it down into
smaller parts?
Each of these categories can contain
many question that we ask until one of
the following happens :
1. you reveal information that helps
clarify the need for X
2. the person you re talking to sees
that they re unable to logically
explain the need for X (which is a
sure sign that something needs to
change)
habit of asking simple and direct
138
questions, conversation can be nudged
along the path of critical thinking that
will help expose possible flaws in prior
reasoning. Or, as Socrates put it, I cannot
teach anybody anything, I can only topic
under discussion in order to draw
students into a thoughtful and thought- make
them think.
Now, all of this has to be done with great
tact and patience. Don t just whip out a
list of questions and begin drilling
everyone you see. The core of the
approach is to understand that prior
reasoning is not necessarily good
reasoning and that it is important to
verify it. Equally important is to learn
how and when to ask questions, with
enough detachment that the person whom
you re asking does not feel interrogated
but rather feels part of a part of a
thinking conversation about a joint enterprise.
Socratic Method: asking good
questions that promote thoughtful and
relevant responses
Adapted in part from a Powerpoint
presentation to EMS tutors in May
2012 by Megan Bam, and in part from
pages published on
139
Criticalthinking.org and the
University of Carleton s Geoscience
Department website.
What is the Socratic Method?
Named for the famed Greek philosopher
Socrates (470-399 B. C.), a Socratic
approach to teaching is based on the
practice of disciplined, rigorously
thoughtful dialogue . In brief, the lecturer
claims to know very little about the
provoking discussion that will engage
them in thinking through their own ideas
and responses to the topic, and to what
they have been learning in the course.
The overall aim of using the Socratic
method of questioning students and
eliciting their responses and engagement
is based on Socrates idea that the
disciplined practice of thoughtful
questioning enables the scholar/student
to examine ideas logically and to be able
to determine the validity of those ideas .
This approach is sometimes also called
the dialectical approach and because it
allows students and teachers to identify
and correct misconceptions and
140
misunderstandings, it can lead to reliable
knowledge construction, and also
promotes more independent thinking.
Why is it effective in teaching and
learning?
According to the Carleton University:
Socratic questioning helps students to
think critically by focusing explicitly on
the process of thinking. During
disciplined, carefully structured
questioning, students must slow down
and examine their own thinking
processes (i.e., reflective thinking).
Thoughtful, disciplined questioning in
the classroom can achieve the following
teaching and learning goals:
This approach may seem simple, but it is
in fact quite rigorous to manage
successfully in practice. The lecturer or
tutor needs to feign ignorance about the
topic under discussion so that students
have to contribute fully to the
conversation, and in so doing actively
construct and critique and think carefully
about the knowledge they are using. If
the teacher steps in and starts giving
them the answers, the process of getting
students to question their own ideas and
141
think about their knowledge in a more
disciplined and rigorous way is
somewhat defeated.
This method is effective in teaching and
learning because it promotes more active
learning; it focuses on what students are
doing and asks them to engage in their
own learning and thinking, rather than
treating them as passive receivers of
knowledge; it takes some of the pressure
off the lecturer or tutor to have all the
answers and asks students to take
responsibility for coming up with the
answers; and it develops graduate
attributes that speak being inquiryfocused and knowledgeable, being
skilled communicators and having a
critical attitude towards knowledge.
Socratic Method - UWC
https://www.uwc.ac.za/TandL/Documents
/Socratic%2ethod.pdf
Socratic Method: asking good questions
that promote thoughtful and relevant ...
retention of knowledge
142
(http://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/socratic
/third.html).
Search Results
Critical thinking is the process we use to
reflect on, access and judge the
assumptions underlying our own and
others ideas and actions. Socratic
questioning is at the heart of critical
thinking and a number of homework
problems draw from R.W. Paul's
Socratic questions:
9 types of Socratic Questions
umich.edu/~scps/html/probsolv/strategy/
cthinking.htm
Critical thinking is the process we use to
reflect on, access and judge the
assumptions underlying our own and
others ideas and actions. Socratic
questioning is at the heart of critical
thinking and a number of homework
problems draw from R.W. Paul's Socratic questions:
143
1. TYPES OF SOCRATIC QUESTIONS
Due to the rapid addition of new
information and the advancement of
science and technology that occur almost
daily, an engineer must constantly
expand his or her horizons beyond
simple gathering information and relying
on the basic engineering principles.
http://www.trigonweb.com/dowload/SO
CRATIC%20QUESTIONS.pdf
THE SIX TYPES OF SOCRATIC QUESTIONS
1. Questions for
clarification:
G
Why do you say that?
G
How does this relate to our discussion?
G
What do you mean by?
G
What do we already know about...?
144
2. Questions that probe
assumptions:
G
What could we assume instead?
G
How can you verify or disapprove that
assumption?
G
Could you explain why you arrived at
that
conclusion? (Explain how...)
G
What would happen if...?
G
Do you agree or disagree with this
statement...?
3. Questions that probe
reasons and evidence:
G
What would be an example?
G
What is....analogous to?
G
What do you think causes to happen...?
Why:?
G
What evidence is there to support your
answer?
4. Questions about
145
Viewpoints and
Perspectives:
G
What would be an alternative?
G
What is another way to look at it?
G
Would you explain why it is necessary-or
beneficial and who benefits?
G
Why is the best?
G
What are the strengths and weaknesses
of...?
G
How are...and ...similar?
G
What is a counter argument for...?
G
Compare... and... with regard to...
5. Questions that probe
implications and
consequences:
What are you implying?
GG
What generalizations can you make?
G
What a
How does...affect...?
146
G
How does...tie in with what we have
learned before?
G
Why is... important?
6. Questions about the
question:
G
What was the point of this question?
G
Why do you think I asked this question?
G
What does...mean?
G
How does...apply to everyday life?
Socratic Questions
Socratic Questions
[Adapted from Richard Paul's
Critical Thinking Workshop
]
A.
Questions that probe CONCEPTUAL
understandings.
1. What do you mean by ____?
2. How does ____ relate to ____?
3. Could you put that another way?
4. Is your basic point ____ or ____?
5. Let me see if I understand you; do you
mean ____
147
or ____?
6. How does this relate to our
discussion/problem/i
ssue?
7. Could you give me an example?
8. Would this be an example: ____?
9. Could you explain further?
10. Can you find a more precise term for
____?
B.
Questions that probe ASSUMPTIONS.
1. What are you assuming?
2. What could we assume instead?
3. You seem to be assuming ____. Do I
understand yo
u correctly?
4. You seem to be assuming ____. How
would you just
ify taking this for
granted?
5. Why would someone make this
assumption?
C.
Questions that probe REASONS AND
EVIDENCE for a pos
ition.
1. How do you know?
2. Why do you think that is true?
3. Do you have any evidence for that?
148
4. What are your reasons for saying that?
5. What other information do we need?
6. Could you explain your reasons to us?
7. Are these reasons adequate?
8. Why did you say that?
9. What led you to that belief?
10. How does that apply to this case?
11. What would change your mind?
12. Is there a reason to doubt that
evidence?
13. What would you say to someone who
said ____?
14. By what reasoning did you come to
that conclusi
on?
15. How could we find out whether that
is true?
D.
Questions about PERSPECTIVES.
1. You seem to be approaching this from
____ perspe
ctive. Why have you
chosen this rather than another
perspective?
2. How would other groups/types of
people respond?
Why? What would
influence them?
3. How could you answer the objection
149
that ____ wou
ld make?
4. What might someone who believed
____ think?
5. Can/did anyone see this another way?
6. How many other perspectives can you
imagine?
E.
Questions that probe CONSEQUENCES
of a position.
1. When you say ____, are you implying
____?
2. But if that happened, what else would
happen as
a result? Why?
3. What effect would that have?
4. Would that necessarily happen or only
probably h
appen?
5. If we disagree, what consequences
could result?
6. If this and this is the case, then what
else mus
t also be true?
7. Would any implication or result cause
you to think differently?
Contents
Introduction Part One
150
A Taxonomy of Socratic Questions
Based in Critical Thinking Concepts
Questions that Target the Parts of
Thinking
Questions that Target the Quality of
Reasoning
The Art of Socratic Questioning
Checklist
Four Directions in Which to Pursue
Thought
Three Kinds of Questions
Asking One-System, No-System, and
Conflicting-System Questions
Questioning Questions: Identifying
Prior Questions
Asking Complex Interdisciplinary
Questions
151
Ulrich de Balbian