On this page, you will find a list of questions and tasks that will be covered on the final exam. I will update the list as we move through the topics. You can use it for reference when studying for the exam.
You should be able to:
- describe the difference between “science” and “Wissenschaft”
- explain what an “epistemic authority” is
- describe the difference between science and the philosophy of science
02 Science vs. pseudoscience
You are expected to be able to:
- explain what the demarcation problem consists in
- list the five aspects of science (a way of acquiring knowledge, a system of knowledge, etc.)
- list the five features of any scientific discipline (object of inquiry, language, …)
- describe the five essential features of science (objectivity, criticism, …)
- define pseudoscience
- describe at least three typical differences between science and pseudoscience
- explain the differences between science and pre-science (common sense knowledge)
You should be able to:
- characterize language in general
- describe the difference between a notion and a concept
- describe the relations in a semantic triangle
- tell the difference between the meaning and denotation of an expression
- distinguish between analytic and empirical statements, as well as describe the differences in testing each for truth
- define polysemy and vagueness
- describe the structure of a definition
- distinguish between analytic and synthetic definitions
- list the other kinds of definitions and briefly characterize them
04 Intro to argumentation
I expect you to be able to:
- define argumentation and argument
- list the main categories of arguments, including the subtypes of inductive arguments
- (deductive arguments)
- define logical entailment (provide the formal definition and explain it in your own words, using examples)
- provide examples of valid deductive arguments
- describe the properties of a “sound” deductive argument (and give an example)
- given an example of:
- a valid deductive argument whose conclusion is actually false
- a valid deductive argument whose premises are all actually false
- an invalid deductive argument whose premises all actually true and the conclusion is also true
- (inductive arguments)
- give an example of enumerative induction and describe its structure
- list the conditions for a reliable enumerative induction
- give an example of a statistical argument and describe its structure
- give an example of an argument by analogy and describe its structure
- describe the problem of induction (what it is)
- (abductive arguments)
- give an example of a plausible abductive argument
- describe the functions of abductive reasoning in science
- describe the differences between deductive and non-deductive arguments (in terms of the relation between premises and conclusion and of the informational content of the conclusions)
- bonus question: figure out why it is wrong to describe deductive arguments as “reasoning from the general to the particular”
You should be able to:
- distinguish empirical from conceptual methods
- describe why there is no “pure experience” (i.e., all experience is “theory-laden”)
- distinguish facts, data, and evidence
- observation
- define observation
- describe the four aspects of observation (subject, object, ...)
- distinguish direct and indirect, qualitative and quantitative, simple and experimental observation
- measurement
- define measurement
- describe the differences between nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio scales, and provide examples of each
- describe the three kinds of measurement (counting, scaling, measurement proper), and provide examples
- distinguish the validity and reliability of measurement (and describe the relation between them)
- experiment
- define experiment
- describe the structure of an experiment
- provide (valid) examples of dependent, independent, and extraneous variables (i.e., describe a possible experimental situation)
- understand the concepts of sample, population, and sampling
- describe the purpose of controlling for variables and list at least two ways this is done
- provide examples of empirical methods (variants of observation, measurement, and experiment used in natural and social science)
You will be expected to:
- describe the method of explication and distinguish it from defining
- describe, in general terms, the methods of analysis and synthesis
- describe the method of classification and the two conditions for a well-formed classification
- provide examples of classifications (including hierarchical and multi-dimensional classifications)
- describe the methods of abstraction and idealization
- list examples of ideal objects used in science
- distinguish between empirical and conceptual modeling (and give examples)
- describe the method of thought experiment
07 The structure of scientific research
You should be able to:
- describe the six stages of the H-D model (from formulating the problem to assessing the test results)
- characterize scientific problems, hypotheses, and test implications
- explain the difference between a dependent and an independent variable, and describe their roles in research
- explain how research leads to new problems
08 The structure of scientific research II
You will be expected to:
- describe why our model of scientific research is called the “hypothetico-deductive model”
- explain what operationalization is and provide your own example
- list the 4 types of hypotheses and provide examples of each
- define verification and verifiability
- define falsification and falsifiability
- explain why certain types of hypotheses cannot be verified
- explain why certain types of hypotheses cannot be falsified
- describe the difference between verification and confirmation
You should be able to:
- describe the role of predictions in the testing of hypotheses
- describe corroboration and its relation to the doctrine of fallibilism
- describe the inference we make when falsifying a universal hypothesis (and distinguish it from the inference made when a hypothesis is confirmed/corroborated)
- distinguish between practical falsifiability and falsifiability in principle
- explain the falsificationist criterion of demarcation
- desribe what “immunity” to falsification is and how it can be achieved with universal hypotheses
- explain the limits of falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation (what else has to be considered?)