Summary Theoretical Issues in Psychology An Introduction

ISBN-10 0761942017 ISBN-13 9780761942016
242 Flashcards & Notes
5 Students
  • This summary

  • +380.000 other summaries

  • A unique study tool

  • A rehearsal system for this summary

  • Studycoaching with videos

Remember faster, study better. Scientifically proven.

This is the summary of the book "Theoretical Issues in Psychology An Introduction". The author(s) of the book is/are Sacha Bem Huib Looren de Jong. The ISBN of the book is 9780761942016 or 0761942017. This summary is written by students who study efficient with the Study Tool of Study Smart With Chris.

PREMIUM summaries are quality controlled, selected summaries prepared for you to help you achieve your study goals faster!

Summary - Theoretical Issues in Psychology An Introduction

  • 1 science: why and how?

  • what are the most characteristics (6) of scientific knowledge and explain what they mean
    1. systematicity: theories must be apllicable accross the board, the theoretical edifice must be coherent and if possible hierarchical; the domain of application is specified at the outset

    2. well-defined methods: methods also specify what will count as legitimate subject matter, facts and explanada. psychologists, for instance, will be reluctant to investigate poltergeists as a phenomena in their own right: chemists will disown the philosophers stone: they fall outside the framework, and do not count as observation

    3. reduction: both in the sense of ignoring certain aspects of reality at the descriptive level, and in the sense of reducing phenomena to underlying principles at the explainatory level.

    4. objectivity: in the sense of being controllable, reliable and intersubjectively observable. 

    5. clarity: scientific statements are phrased unambigiously, in principle addressed to the public domein

    6. rebisable: scientific knowledge is open, at all-time revisable, and never definitive
  • Tegenstanders van de wetenschap nemen een relativistisch standpunt. Wat houdt dat in?
    zij zeggen dat elke theorie zo goed is als de volgende, de wetenschappelijke benadering hangt af van irrelevante factoren
  • Epistemology
    Theory of knowledge, How and why
  • what is realism?
    realism is a possible ground for justification, it says that knowledge corresponds to reality; more precisely, that the terms for our theories refere t, corresponds with, real things in the world
  • Wat is de indrukwekkende eigenschap van wetenschap?
    Het verklaart onverbonden fenomenen als de effecten van onderliggende causale structuren.
  • Realism
    Knowlegde pictures the objective world.  Mind-independent. 
    Truth= Correspondence --> theory is true if it's corresponding with nature
  • what is the main problem with realism?
    there is no measure of agreement between language and reality, if only because it would have to be put it into language, in the form of a theory
  • Wat is epistemology?
    filosofen die claims of knowledge onderzoeken (?)
  • Idealism
    Knowledge is a subjective construction. World existst only in our mind, we create it
    Truth= coherence -->Theory is true when it is consistent with the rest of our knowledge
  • what is idealism?
    idealism is a possible ground for justification, it holds that the world as we know it is somehow a creation of the mind,. our knowledge is a subjective product and does not necessarily correspond to an outside world

  • Pragmatism
    Knowledge is functional and interactive, between idealism & realism. Between objective and subjective. --> Functional view of knowledge. 
    Truth: Success
  • what is the problem with idealism?
    there is no criterion for comparing our theories directly with the world, since any such comparison must be, it seems, a theory, so that there is nog way of getting beyond stepping outside the theory. thus realism in the epistemological literal sense is impossible
  • Scientific Knowledge
    Objective. Testable (clear and unambiguous)
    Revisable (anti-dogmatic). Falsibilism (popper)
    Well-defined methods (norms etc)
  • why can pragmatism be seen as a kind of intermediate position between realism and idealism?
    because in pragmatism the idea is that the mind and the world jointly make up the mind and the world. this is a functional view of knowledge. it holds that knowledge is a kind of interaction of subject and object, rather than being either passive picturing or subjective contructing
  • Unification
    Same laws everywhere. Part of scientific knowledge
  • what is the common view of truth in realism?
    correspondence: theories are true if they corresponds with the nature
  • Reduction
    Reducing to a more basic level. Underlying causes explain macro-phenomena. More basic theories. There is nothing but matter in motion.
  • what is the common view of truth in idealism?
    coherence: theories are true if they are consistent with the rest of our knowledge
  • Two table theory
    Ebbington. Table one is the Visible table. (solid, color, weight) table 2: Molecular table. (space with protons etc.)
  • what is the common view of truth in pragmatism?
    the meaning of theoretical terms derive from their practical use, and that manipulation is a determinant in the structure of knowledge
  • Image distinction
    Sellars. Image: the way the man thinks of themselve in the world. Manifest image: common sense, objective. Scientific image: particles and forces.
    Main difference: Not the difference between scientific and non-scientific. But between techniques tell us about correlation and the invisible things that make the correlation between visible things possible
  • What are Sellars'  manifest image and scientific image?
    manifest: the world of objects and persons of common sense
    scientific: the world of particles and forces posited by advanced science. 
  • Deduction
    Deducing from a general law to a personal thing. From big to small. Conclusion is only true when: 1.Argument must be valid, 2.the premisses must be true. Not new knowledge
  • what is a deductive argument?
    sets of statements (the premises) connected in such a way that a conclusion results from them.

    eg: men are biggger than mice, mice are bigger than ants, thus: men are bigger than ants
  • Premises
    Assumption that something is true. An argument needs true premisses to make a valid conclusion
  • what is the difference between inductive and deductive arguments?

    Deductive arguments have premises that logically contain the conclusion, inductive arguments have non-conclusive arguments, the conclusion is only, more ore less, supported by the arguments.

  • Sylogism
    logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion with help of 2 premises
  • what is the 'problem of induction'?
    the lack of certainty, or, more precisely, the suspicion that scientific inference is not justifiable and consequently that science is unfounded.
  • What are the most important characteristics of scientific knowledge?
    well-defined methods
  • Induction
    Generalising form observation. New Knowledge, no certainty. To go from a individual thing to a generalisation. Small to Big. 
    Problem:It can not be formalised, and every observation can be disconfeirmed by a new one
  • what is abduction?
    a kind of reasoning in which an explanatory hypothesis is derived from a set of facts. 

    eg: if it has rained, the streets are wet. the streets are wet, thus: it may have rained
  • The problem of Induction
    The suspicion that scientific interference is not justifiable and consequently that science is unfounded.
    Bacon: empiricism. drawing generalisations
    Hume: induction problem, no certainty
    Popper: uninteresting, more of the same.Better bold conjectures
  • wat is the context of justifcation?
    onderzoek naar een objectief criterium om een algemene theorie/wet justificeerbaar te maken, los van invloed van individuele fouten en context
  • Raven's Paradox
    If with induction, you see a black raven, all raven's should be black. But according to the induction formula; even all white things that are not ravens are consistent with the theory. Induction can not be logically justified.
  • wat is de context of discovery?
    wetenschapfilosofisch onderzoek naar de historische, persoonlijke en osciale processen bij de totstandkoming van theorieen en feiten
  • Abduction
    Inference to the best explanation. No logical certainty, new hypothetical knowledge about causes. The conclusion is just a possibility. 
  • wat is 'theory ladenness'? en waarom kan het een probleem zijn?
    observaties zijn niet neutraal of objectief, maar worden geinterpreteerd met een theorie in gedachten. een set observaties kan zowel kloppend worden enoemd bij de nulhypothese als bij de alternatieve hypothese. feiten zijn dus niet onafhankelijk maar hangen samen en komen overeen met de hypothese die de onderzoeker in gedachten houdt. 
    dit is een probleem, want empirisch testen gaat ervan uit dat objectieve feiten een theorie zullen bevestigen of ontkrachten, en dat de beste theorie dan overblijft, en vooruitgang is.
  • Context of Justification
    Focus on normative criteria for holding a theory true. Focus on the degree to which theories are empirical or logical supported. (induction, deduction). Nothing to do with social or psychological problem solving. Normative
  • wat is underdetermination of a theory by data ? (onder-gefundeerd door data)
    algemente wetten zijn meestal waar maar worden niet altijd door iedere observatie ondersteund
  • Context of Discovery
    Focus on historical and psychology on how theories are invented. Under what conditions does science works. Descriptive
  • 4 condities van causale wetten zijn:

    1 Een niet-varieerbare relatie oorzaak en gevolg moet aanwezig zijn. 

    2 Oorzaak & gevolg moeten in dezelfde ruimte in een kettingreactie plaatsvinden

    3 Oorzaak moet voorafgaand zijn aan het effect, dichtbijelkaar in tijd

    4 Het is éénrichtingcausatie: de oorzaak veroorzaakt het gevolg, en niet beide kanten op.

  • Heuristics
    Finding rules, guidelines for discovery. Abduction
  • wat is operationalisering?
    het concept dat je wil meten omformuleren in meetresultaten, testuitslagen, observeerbare data
  • Wat is theory-ladenness?
    een observatie is altijd een onderdeel van iemand zijn theoretische assumpties. Observaties zijn dus nooit neutraal. De wetenschap staat dus nooit vast!
  • Theory-Ladenness
    Theorie influences observation. Always observation is partly determined by on one's theoretical assumptions
  • Empiricism (Bacon)
    collection data and observations is the right way to do science. Pure observations, imagination was dangerous. 
  • Theory
    Set of statements that organizes, predicts and explains observations.
  • Law
    Empirical generalization. A real law has to be counterfactual (never reversible)
  • Wat is counterfactual?
    een wet moet altijd staan zelfs wanneer de omstandigheden dit niet doen
  • Empirical law
    Observables with empirical generalizations
Read the full summary
This summary. +380.000 other summaries. A unique study tool. A rehearsal system for this summary. Studycoaching with videos.

Latest added flashcards

The luminous room
light can't be electromagnetic radiation, churchland: " a failure of imagination"
connectionism (churchland)
Self-organizing networks of interconnected nodes (changing of weights underlies the responses)
Coupled co-evolving systems, developing over time. Smooth mutual adaptation. body mind and world part of a single system
Mental representations
mental state= refer to or stand for something else. Classical & connectionist have a very different view .
DST Dynamical system theorie 
cognition is a continuous and dynamic interaction with the enviroment. Not internal symbol manipulation. Tools for understanding the development on systems & their interaction across time
Problems; role of representations and the idea of organism & the enviroment as coupled systems
Brooks (IQ)
The roots of intelligence and the most important component from it is the ability to move around in a dynamic enviroment.
3 strategies for realizing some kind of compositionality in networks
1. construct networks that explicitly implement rules
2.realize functional compositionality
3.exploiting extern symbols.
conclusion: cognition requires complex representational structures
Difference classical (fodor) en connectionist aproach
Classical: discrete symbols. logical reasoning en sentences in head. inborn cognitive structure. (cartesian rationalism, descartes)
Connectionist: activation patterns, holistic neuron-like activation patterns
3 contenders for the true account of mind
1. Classical symbolic view. (turing machine)
2.Neural-network view (connectionist techniques)
3. Dynamic view (dynamical systems theory)
language/logic-based approach is dead on both counts. Integrated naturalist philosophy of mind. All observations are theory-laden
against folk-psychology-->elimination
against fodor --> alternative for CTM
Against autonomy
against LOT