Wida Hanifah

Juleha
RELATIVISM,
INSTRUMENTALISM,
and
RELEVANCE
Theory-Laden Observations

The process of induction is

based on the idea that is
possible to get information
about the world which is
independent of the person who
gathers it. Francis bacon inductive
insisted that a scientist should
method of
set aside all personal
reasoning
preferences in assessing data,
in the hope that any theory
derived from it should equally
apply to other observers and
other times.
Sometimes, observations in one area of experience
can lead to a general theory in another. Ex: in On
the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin. We can
see the way in which Darwin moves from
observations to the framing of models to account
for them, to an overall theory. We ca also trace
ideas that influenced him (e.g. Malthus and
Lamarck)
Paul Feyerbend pointed out that interpretation is an
integral part of the process of observation.
Example:
I look into the sky and see small black dot. The fact
that I see that dot is neither true nor false; it is simply
a fact. If I go on to say ‘there’s a plane’ that may be
true; on the other hand, if the dot turns out to be a
bird, then my statement is false. Observation is sense
data plus interpretation.
The Logical Positivists had argued that:
To show that something is correct :
 I must be able to show ways in which that statement
corresponds to external reality;
 I need to specify my evidence.

Feyerabend argued that:

This is impossible since the evidence I produce is again part of my
interpretation of the world. I can’t get outside that interpretation.

The result of this is that one cannot ‘fit’ one’s statements and
interpretations to the world itself. Different people have
different ways of interpreting experience.
Karl Popper argued that:
 science was not subjective
 it could be strictly objective
 science transcends the ideas of individuals
 it is to be understood mainly in terms of the whole scientific community

Lakatos argued that:

Theories being developed within ‘research projects’ rather than in
isolation from one another.

Khun argued that:

For whom normal science is carried on within an existing
framework of ideas.
ALTERNATIVE MODELS

A process of scientific enquiry should be constantly looking to see if there are

alternative theories to account for the evidence to hand-the existing theory is
then rejected if another emerges that is more comprehensive.
Example:
There is nothing wrong with Newtonian physics if your interests are limited
to basic mechanical devices on the surface of this planet. On the other hand,
in extreme situations, one needs to move from Newton to Einstein.
Newtonian physics is therefore seen as limited rather than wrong. Einstein’s
theories of relativity are preferred simply because they can predict events that
are beyond the scope of Newtonian physics.
Radically different theorist may be equally compatible with the evidence.
So, the way to choose them is through one criterion might be the degree to
which they can ‘fit’ existing evidence and theories. As we saw above
(Chapter 4), Kuhn thinks that there are five different qualities to be taken
into consideration.

Quine argued that:

Theories are underdetermined when there is insufficient data to be able to
decide which of the available theories is best able to account for it, and
therefore that is it possible to hold whichever of them you choose.
A research program should yield both new facts, but also new theories; in other
words, it should produce what amounts to a program of continuous growth. It is
not enough for a theory to have a fundamental unity and consistency.
Example:
Lakatos is critical of Marxism had no produced any new ‘facts’. In practice, he
was therefore critical of any theory that had become monolithic and static.
He pointed out that:
The direction of science is determined primarily by human creative imagination
and not by the universe of facts which surrounds us.
Theories may be assessed in terms of their relevance to the
background assumptions of the scientific community.
Khun

In ‘normal science’ era, a group of scientist share a single

Weltanschauung, and theories will therefore be judged
according to their relevance to that world-view & the
presupposition of the scientific community as a whole.
Individual scientists

Likely have differences in

ItPresently
is
project
not necessary
work on same
background, experience, &
training

This may mean that one

They all have an identical
scientist will accept a theory
world-view
more readily than others.
Feyerabend

He sees the process of putting forward new theories as a continous

But notice
one, and finds no absolute way of deciding between the theories put
forward

Knowledge is reduced to prejudices or inclinations of a certain sector

of the scientific community. THE DANGER!!

A theory seems relevant to the interests of one group does not

guarantee that it will be relevant to others.
Lakatos

Relevance is shown fundamentally in the ability to predict.

A theory, for Lakatos, is examined in the light of research program that

has developed, and is therefore judged by its relevance to that
program.
Lakatos

Research Program*

PROGRESSIVE
If it can lead to predictions that are DEGENERATIVE
then confirmed, enabling te overall If it fails to predict, or loses its
coherence of the program to be overall coherence
maintained

*needs to show development

Problems - Roles
Indeed, philosophy often addresses problems lying beyond the
reach of scientific investigation. So, this approach can have several
roles:

1. It can examine the coherence of concepts, frameworks and

existing practices within any individual discipline.

2. Other approaches have their own ways to validate their findings,

but they rarely have criteria for interpreting these findings.
One potential problem with any discipline is that its theoretical
foundations are usually taken for granted. Thus, besides critical analysis
of existing practices and theories, philosophy can make distinct
contributions by focusing on the meta-level. In other words, it can tease
out and examine assumptions that any particular discipline or method is
based on. No individual discipline can do so, because it already operates
within its own framework, which requires accepting its presuppositions.
Finally, philosophy can have an overarching, synthetic function.
Whereas scientists tend to become more and more specialised in their
interests, philosophers generally stand back from the details of
particular research programmes and concentrate on making sense of
the overall principles and on establishing how they relate to each other.
Thus, even if some epistemic categories require contributions from
specialised disciplines, it is philosophy that can provide the perspective
from which they are not only examined, but also combined. Such a
contribution is significant because it gives hope that a coherence and
completeness of human understanding can be achieved.