working together, 4-5 students per question, each student just answers one question
1. What's the purpose of this chapter?
2. What's the key question of the chapter?
3. What's the most important information in the chapter?
4. What are the key concepts of this chapter?
5. What does the author mean by those concepts?
6. What is the point of view or views of the chapter?
The purpose of chapter 3, is to explain the significance of the D-N model, the model of scientific explanation, and how we use this model in science. The chapter also brings up the problems that go along with the D-N model, such as the model being too narrow along with it being too permissive. The problem of symmetry and the problem of irrelevance show how the model suffers with being too narrow and too permissive.
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of this chapter was to inform the reader about the different methods of reasoning, inductive and deductive, that are used by scientists to process evidence uncovered in their studies into viable theories. The chapter also explained that neither method is complete in that deductive reasoning can leave out other possible causes for phenomena, and that inductive can sometimes include information that is not always relevant to the issue being investigated.
ReplyDeleteThe key question that is being addressed in this chapter is "What exactly is scientific explanation?" (Pg. 40) The more specific question that the chapter aims to answer is "What exactly does it mean to say that a phenomena can be explained by science?" The chapter aims to answer this question by analyzing Carl Hempel's "Covering Law Model." In aiming to explain a phenomena, Hempel stated that "The conclusion states that the phenomenon that needs explaining actually occurs, and the premisses tell us why the conclusion is true." However a fundamental problem with this Model is pointed out called the "Problem of Symmetry" which allows something to count as a scientific explanation that obviously is not. (In cases such as these, Hempel's model is too liberal. E.g The flagpole example.) Another problem that arises from this Model is the "Problem of Irrelevance" which allows things to count as scientific explanations that intuitively are not. (Again too permissive. E.g. The male pregnancy and birth control pills example.) The final question asked is "Can science explain everything?" In regards to this, Okasha states that since nothing can explain itself, it follows that at least some of these laws and principles will themselves remain unexplained.
ReplyDelete