1. How does Science explain a fact? Please use the entire explanation on. p. 91 and 92.
Science explains a fact ideally by embedding it in a general law from which, along with particular conditions involved, the fact to be explained may be logically deduced. In explanation a particular fact is explained by being comprehended under, and derived from a general law. The scientist explains what happens by devising concepts to describe particular experiences and by supplying a framework for covering laws from which, in conjunction with the specific conditions involved, we may make inferences about what it is that we want to have explained.
2. What are some common misconceptions about scientific explanations? How does Abel refute each one?
Science describes rather than explains. However there is a fine line between description and explanation because if scientific explanations are only descriptions then what would be their explanations? Science explains the strange by the familiar. However it is usually the opposite case because most familiar phenomena like illness are explained by unfamiliar concepts like complicated diseases. Scientific explanation is not the same as understanding in the sense in which it is said. However this understanding is more like knowledge by acquaintance. Scientific explanations need not be casual laws. It may be a law of simultaneous existence rather than of succession.
3. What does Abel mean when he says: "a law in turn may be explained by another law of wider scope; the greater the generality, the better the explanation." (p. 93)?
He means that some laws require more explanation which more general laws on the topic can provide.
4. What does Abel mean when he says: "Explanation is always relative to a given knowledge situation; you must stop somewhere." (p. 94)?
Humans are limited to the amount of knowledge they can acquire and therefore they can only explain as much as they know.
5. Why are explanatory reductions "economical ways of describing phenomena." (p. 95)?
This is because they are not ontological and do not eliminate processes or events from the world.
6. Why does scientific explanation require the concept of system?
Because to be thought of as a machine would mean it is the sum of all its parts but in fact it is really a whole concept which determines the operation of its parts.
7. Why is the theory of emergence used to explain how anything new came into the world? What counter-claim does Abel provide?
It is used to do this in order to remedy the inability of metaphysics of mechanism to do the same task. Abel claims that just because we cannot predict the properties of these things at a given point in time with our lack of knowledge does not mean they can never be predicted.
8. Why is theory and observation interdependent in scientific explanations?
This is because observation can be used to explain and create a theory and a theory can be used to explain a possible theoretical observation even when it can never actually be observed.
9. Why is explanation in science theoretically identical to prediction? How does Abel feel about this?
This is because an explanation can only be considered right if it can accurately predict future phenomena. Abel says that this is not always true however, because it can be explained that one phenomenon was caused by something but you cannot know for sure if it will cause it again or if something else may cause the same thing again.
10. What does Abel mean when he says: 'The growth of science is not a clear-cut, straightforward progression toward a unique, all-inclusive final truth." (p. 100)?
He means that many unexpected and out-of-place factors can effect and cloud the progression.
11. According to Abel, what situations are seen by scientists as requiring explanation?
Situations that do not have any obvious explanation to begin with in context of the time period and society the scientist is in. For example, more religious scientists don’t need an explanation for the beginning of the world.
12. What is the role of the human element in the progress of scientific explanation?
Science has no guiding rules and therefore humans must make their own paths to their theories and it can therefore be different for different humans.
13. Abel claims that: "Our perceptual knowledge is delimited by our characteristic biological capacities, and there are limits to the completeness of our theoretical structures. But our observations and our theories mutually reinforce each other....The structure of our science is pragmatically justified; it is the most reliable knowledge there is." (p. 105) Does this hold true in History as well?
Yes because history is created through the comparison of memories and documents that must mutually support each other in order to become historical fact. Therefore it is the most reliable knowledge we have about events we can never be entirely sure of.
14. In Bullet form, and using information from this chapter and Chapter 15 (you wrote Study Questions on November 9), please list the similarities and differences between Scientific and Historical explanations.
• Science can explain specific laws with more general laws and history can explain the purpose of a specific event happening with the explanation of a larger event that affected it.
• The reliance of both scientific and historical explanation is constantly being questioned.
• Science is explained through present observations but history is explained through past memories.
• Humans affect the process of both scientific and historical explanations.
• Science is often explained through the concept of a system but in history, individual events must add up to the larger event or it is not considered logical.
• Neither scientific nor historical explanations can always predict the future.
• Both science and history are explained through mutually agreeable information that is gained about an event or phenomenon.
No comments:
Post a Comment