Chapter 11. Objectivity and the Philosophy of Science
Practice Exercises: Chapter 11
Group 1: The Scientific Method & Theory Choice
Evaluate the following scenarios based on the Hypothetical-Deductive Method and the Criteria of Adequacy.
-
A biologist notices that certain fish in a lake are dying. She proposes that a nearby factory is leaking chemicals into the water. In the Hypothetical-Deductive Method, what is the next logical step she must take before testing?
-
Theory A explains the known movement of planets. Theory B explains the movement of planets and correctly predicts the existence of a previously unseen moon. Which theory is superior in terms of Fruitfulness?
-
Why is a “Weight of Evidence” approach more appropriate for a Reasonable Person than seeking “Absolute Proof” in science?
-
If a theory is Unfalsifiable, which criterion of adequacy is it most directly violating?
Group 2: Problems with Objectivity
Apply the concepts of Relativity and the Observer Effect to these philosophical questions.
-
According to General Relativity, if two observers are moving at vastly different speeds, will they agree on the “objective” time an event took to occur?
-
How does the Double-Slit Experiment challenge the classical scientific ideal of the “detached spectator”?
-
True or False: The Measurement Problem suggests that at a subatomic level, the act of observation can change the behavior of the object being studied.
Group 3: Science vs. Pseudoscience (Demarcation)
Identify whether the following scenarios represent Science or Pseudoscience based on the criteria of Falsifiability and Progressiveness.
-
A “crystal healer” claims their stones can cure any illness. When a patient doesn’t get better, the healer claims the patient “didn’t have enough faith,” which blocked the energy.
-
A geologist adjusts his theory about tectonic plate movement after new satellite data contradicts his previous calculations.
-
A field of study has used the same textbook and core “truths” for 400 years, despite major advancements in related biological and physical sciences.
-
A physicist publishes a paper with a prediction that, if wrong, would completely invalidate her entire career’s work.
Group 4: Values and Social Objectivity
Answer the following based on Feminist Philosophy of Science and Helen Longino’s work.
-
Distinguish between Constitutive Values and Contextual Values. Which one describes a scientist’s commitment to “Simplicity”?
-
Why does Helen Longino argue that a diverse scientific community (representing different genders, races, and backgrounds) leads to better objectivity?
-
What is “Epistemic Discounting”, and how does it act as a barrier to objective scientific progress?
Group 5: Scientific Revolutions
Identify the phase of Kuhn’s Cycle (Normal Science, Anomaly, Crisis, or Revolution) in each scenario.
-
Astronomers notice a star is wobbling in a way that the current laws of physics cannot explain. They initially assume their telescope is just out of focus.
-
The scientific community moves from the Newtonian paradigm to the Einsteinian paradigm.
-
A chemist spends her entire career performing “routine” experiments to map the specific properties of a new set of polymers within established chemical laws.
Answer Key
Group 1: Scientific Method
-
Deduction (Prediction): She must deduce what else would be true if the factory were the cause (e.g., “If the factory is leaking, then water samples near the factory should show higher chemical concentrations than samples across the lake”).
-
Theory B. It successfully predicted new phenomena.
-
Because science relies on Induction, which deals in probability and evidence, whereas “Proof” is a deductive standard reserved for math and logic.
-
Testability.
Group 2: Problems with Objectivity
-
No. Relativity shows that time is relative to the observer’s frame of reference.
-
It shows that the Subject (observer) and Object (electron) are entangled; you cannot observe the system without changing its state.
-
True.
Group 3: Science vs. Pseudoscience
-
Pseudoscience. It is Unfalsifiable because the healer used an Ad Hoc Hypothesis (“lack of faith”) to explain away the failure.
-
Science. It shows Self-Correction and responsiveness to evidence.
-
Pseudoscience. It is Stagnant and fails to solve new “puzzles” or integrate with other fields.
-
Science. It is a “Risky Prediction” and is highly Falsifiable.
Group 4: Values and Social Objectivity
-
Constitutive Values are internal to science (like Simplicity); Contextual Values are external social/cultural biases.
-
A diverse group is less likely to share the same “blind spots” (contextual values), allowing them to criticize and correct each other’s biases.
-
It is the tendency to devalue the findings or authority of a scientist based on their social identity rather than the quality of their work.
Group 5: Scientific Revolutions
-
Anomaly. (A fact that doesn’t fit the map).
-
Revolution (Paradigm Shift).
-
Normal Science. (Puzzle-solving within the rules).
