Informative Quiz On Chapter 15 Philosphoy
-
Anomaly:
-
A deviation from what is normal or expected.
-
Finding a state of affairs or a fact which supports or verifies some claim.
-
A used by Karl Popper, a criterion for testing the warrant of a scientific claim.
-
Philosophy is a topic you can easily get enthralled by with only a little bit of study, given that it deals with all of the fundamental problems that are affected by matters such as existence, knowledge and reason. What do you know about the official study of philosophy? Take this quiz and we’ll see!
Quiz Preview
- 2.
Confirmation:
-
A statement or claim referring to an entire group or population as opposed to referring to some specific individual.
-
Finding a state of affairs or a fact which supports or verifies some claim.
-
Having nothing in common. For Kuhn, the strong claim hat two paradigms have nothing in common.
Correct Answer
A. Finding a state of affairs or a fact which supports or verifies some claim.Explanation
The given answer is a correct explanation for the term "confirmation." Confirmation refers to finding evidence or facts that support or verify a claim or statement. It is the process of obtaining proof or validation for a particular assertion. In this context, confirmation is not about referring to a group or population, nor is it about two paradigms having nothing in common. It solely pertains to the act of finding information that substantiates a claim.Rate this question:
-
- 3.
Falsification:
-
Having nothing in common. For Kuhn, the strong claim hat two paradigms have nothing in common.
-
statement or claim referring to an entire group or population as opposed to referring to some specific individual.
-
A used by Karl Popper, a criterion for testing the warrant of a scientific claim.
Correct Answer
A. A used by Karl Popper, a criterion for testing the warrant of a scientific claim.Explanation
The correct answer is a criterion for testing the warrant of a scientific claim. Falsification, as used by Karl Popper, refers to the idea that a scientific claim should be capable of being proven false through empirical evidence. This criterion is important in distinguishing scientific theories from non-scientific ones, as scientific theories must be falsifiable and subject to potential refutation. By testing the warrant of a scientific claim through attempts to falsify it, scientists can strengthen the validity and reliability of their theories.Rate this question:
-
- 4.
Generalization:
-
statement or claim referring to an entire group or population as opposed to referring to some specific individual.
-
Reasoning to the probable truth or some claim or explanation.
-
A highly generalized description of a uniformity in nature which holds universally.
Correct Answer
A. statement or claim referring to an entire group or population as opposed to referring to some specific individual.Explanation
The correct answer defines generalization as a statement or claim that refers to an entire group or population rather than a specific individual. This means that when making a generalization, we are making a broad statement about a group of people or things, rather than focusing on specific individuals within that group. Generalizations are often used to make predictions or explain patterns in a population based on observed characteristics or behaviors.Rate this question:
-
- 5.
Incommensurable:
-
Reasoning to the probable truth or some claim or explanation.
-
Having nothing in common. For Kuhn, the strong claim hat two paradigms have nothing in common.
-
A highly generalized description of a uniformity in nature which holds universally.
Correct Answer
A. Having nothing in common. For Kuhn, the strong claim hat two paradigms have nothing in common.Explanation
The term "incommensurable" refers to the idea that two paradigms have nothing in common. This concept is associated with Thomas Kuhn, who argued that paradigms are fundamentally different and cannot be compared or measured against each other using a common standard. Kuhn's strong claim suggests that these paradigms are so different that they cannot be understood or evaluated within the same framework. Therefore, the correct answer is "Having nothing in common."Rate this question:
-
- 6.
Induction:
-
Reasoning to the probable truth or some claim or explanation.
-
A highly generalized description of a uniformity in nature which holds universally.
-
Finding a state of affairs or a fact which supports or verifies some claim.
Correct Answer
A. Reasoning to the probable truth or some claim or explanation.Explanation
The given answer accurately defines induction as the process of reasoning to the probable truth or some claim or explanation. Induction involves generalizing observations or evidence to make a broader conclusion or prediction about a larger set or future events. It is a method used to form hypotheses or theories based on available evidence. Therefore, the answer is correct.Rate this question:
-
- 7.
Law of Nature:
-
Reasoning to the probable truth or some claim or explanation.
-
A highly generalized description of a uniformity in nature which holds universally.
-
Having nothing in common. For Kuhn, the strong claim hat two paradigms have nothing in common.
Correct Answer
A. A highly generalized description of a uniformity in nature which holds universally.Explanation
The correct answer is "A highly generalized description of a uniformity in nature which holds universally." This answer aligns with the definition given in the question, which states that the law of nature is a generalized description that holds universally. It implies that there is a consistent pattern or regularity in the natural world that can be observed and understood.Rate this question:
-
- 8.
Normal Science:
-
A theory with much explanatory power that solves a certain set of problems or anomalies and becomes the model for future scientific work.
-
For Thomas Kuhn, that period in the life of a paradigm where the majority of scientific activity is focused on working out the details of the paradigm.
-
Thought, speculation without the use of senses/
Correct Answer
A. For Thomas Kuhn, that period in the life of a paradigm where the majority of scientific activity is focused on working out the details of the paradigm.Explanation
The correct answer explains that "Normal Science" refers to the period in the life of a paradigm where scientific activity is primarily focused on resolving the intricacies and specifics of the paradigm. This means that during this phase, scientists work on refining and expanding the existing theory, solving problems and anomalies that arise within the paradigm. Thomas Kuhn believes that this phase is crucial for the development and advancement of scientific knowledge.Rate this question:
-
- 9.
Paradigm:
-
Thought, speculation without the use of senses.
-
A theory with much explanatory power that solves a certain set of problems or anomalies and becomes the model for future scientific
-
Reasoning to the probable truth or some claim or explanation.
Correct Answer
A. A theory with much explanatory power that solves a certain set of problems or anomalies and becomes the model for future scientificExplanation
reasoning to the probable truth or some claim or explanation.Rate this question:
-
- 10.
Pure Reason:
-
Thought, speculation without the use of senses.
-
Reasoning to the probable truth or some claim or explanation.
-
A period in the history of Western civilization, dated at the end of Renaissance, in which critical thought about the world was naturalized, and many astronomical and biological insights gained.
Correct Answer
A. Thought, speculation without the use of senses.Explanation
The answer "Thought, speculation without the use of senses" accurately describes the concept of pure reason. Pure reason refers to the process of thinking and speculating about ideas or concepts without relying on sensory experiences or empirical evidence. It involves using logic, rationality, and abstract thinking to arrive at conclusions or explanations. This answer aligns with the definition provided in the question, which states that pure reason involves thought and speculation without the use of senses.Rate this question:
-
- 11.
Scientific revolution:
-
A period in the history of Western civilization, dated at the end of Renaissance, in which critical thought about the world was naturalized, and many astronomical and biological insights gained.
-
Reasoning to the probable truth or some claim or explanation.
-
Requiring scientific hypotheses to be inductively inferred from a collection of facts.
Correct Answer
A. A period in the history of Western civilization, dated at the end of Renaissance, in which critical thought about the world was naturalized, and many astronomical and biological insights gained.Explanation
The scientific revolution refers to a specific period in Western civilization that occurred at the end of the Renaissance. During this time, critical thinking about the world became more prevalent, and significant advancements were made in the fields of astronomy and biology. This answer accurately describes the key features and developments of the scientific revolution.Rate this question:
-
- 12.
Francis Bacon advocated a method of science:
-
Requiring scientific hypotheses to be inductively inferred from a collection of facts.
-
Initial observation or collection of facts
-
Passive
Correct Answer
A. Requiring scientific hypotheses to be inductively inferred from a collection of facts.Explanation
The correct answer is "requiring scientific hypotheses to be inductively inferred from a collection of facts." This means that according to Francis Bacon, scientific hypotheses should be derived through the process of induction, where conclusions are drawn based on a set of observed facts. Bacon believed that scientific inquiry should be based on empirical evidence and that hypotheses should be formulated by carefully examining and analyzing a collection of facts. This approach is in contrast to a more passive method where hypotheses are simply based on initial observations or facts without a systematic process of inference.Rate this question:
-
- 13.
An inductivist model of scientific method places:
-
Attempting to disprove or refute a hypothesis
-
Initial observation or collection of facts
-
The mathematical description of a hypothesis.
Correct Answer
A. Initial observation or collection of factsExplanation
An inductivist model of scientific method places initial observation or collection of facts as the first step in the process. This means that before formulating a hypothesis or conducting experiments, scientists must first gather relevant data and make observations about the phenomenon they are studying. This initial observation or collection of facts serves as the foundation for the development of a hypothesis and subsequent scientific inquiry. By starting with observations and facts, scientists aim to generate hypotheses that are grounded in empirical evidence and can be tested through further experimentation and analysis.Rate this question:
-
- 14.
The inductivist model seems to make the role of the scientist too:
-
Active
-
Lucky
-
Passisive
Correct Answer
A. PassisiveExplanation
The correct answer is "passisive". The inductivist model suggests that scientists simply observe and gather data without actively influencing or shaping the outcome. This approach implies that scientists are passive observers rather than active participants in the scientific process. They rely on luck or chance to discover patterns and make generalizations based on the data they collect. This passive role of the scientist in the inductivist model is in contrast to other models that emphasize the active involvement of scientists in hypothesis generation and experimentation.Rate this question:
-
- 15.
According to Immanuel Kant, a scientist should approach nature as a:
-
Pupil
-
Tape recorder
-
Judge
Correct Answer
A. JudgeExplanation
According to Immanuel Kant, a scientist should approach nature as a judge. This means that a scientist should observe and analyze nature objectively, without any personal biases or preconceived notions. They should carefully evaluate the evidence and draw conclusions based on reason and logic. By adopting a judgmental approach, scientists can strive for objectivity and ensure that their findings are based on empirical evidence rather than subjective opinions or beliefs.Rate this question:
-
- 16.
Karl Popper advocated a method of science:
-
Requiring scientific hypotheses to be falsifiable.
-
Requiring scientific hypotheses to be based on authority
-
In which paradigms serve to define acceptable methodology.
Correct Answer
A. Requiring scientific hypotheses to be falsifiable.Explanation
Karl Popper advocated for the method of science that requires scientific hypotheses to be falsifiable. This means that scientific theories and claims should be able to be tested and potentially proven false through empirical evidence. Popper believed that the strength of a scientific theory lies in its ability to withstand attempts to falsify it, rather than simply being based on authority or consensus. By requiring falsifiability, Popper emphasized the importance of empirical testing and critical thinking in scientific inquiry.Rate this question:
-
- 17.
Thomas Kuhn advocated a method of science:
-
Requiring scientific hypotheses to be falsifiable.
-
In which paradigms serve to define acceptable methodology.
-
Requiring scientific hypotheses to be based on authority
Correct Answer
A. In which paradigms serve to define acceptable methodology.Explanation
Thomas Kuhn advocated a method of science in which paradigms serve to define acceptable methodology. This means that Kuhn believed that scientific research should be conducted within the framework of a particular paradigm, which sets the boundaries for acceptable methods and approaches. Paradigms provide a shared set of assumptions, theories, and methods that guide scientific inquiry. Kuhn argued that scientific progress occurs through shifts in paradigms, rather than through the accumulation of objective facts or the falsification of hypotheses. This perspective challenges the traditional view of science as a purely objective and cumulative endeavor.Rate this question:
-
- 18.
Idetify the events below as:A. Paradigm shiftsB. Not paradigm shifts
-
A) Copernicus's heliocentric theory of the the solar system versus the geocentric theory.
-
A.) Darwin's theory of evolution versus the theory of cretinism.
-
A.)The discovery of a gene fro Alzheimer's disease.
-
B.) The discovery that the universe is closer to 15 billion than 12 billion years old
Correct Answer
A. A) Copernicus's heliocentric theory of the the solar system versus the geocentric theory.Explanation
Copernicus's heliocentric theory of the solar system versus the geocentric theory can be identified as a paradigm shift. This is because it challenged the prevailing belief that the Earth was the center of the universe and proposed that the Sun was actually at the center. This shift in thinking revolutionized our understanding of the solar system and had a profound impact on the field of astronomy.Rate this question:
-
- 19.
According to Thomas Kuhn, normal science occurs when scientists:
-
Are not having to deal with erratic funding sources
-
Are not having to deal with theories like astrology or phrenology
-
Work out the various details of the dominant paradigm
Correct Answer
A. Work out the various details of the dominant paradigmExplanation
According to Thomas Kuhn, normal science refers to the period when scientists are focused on working out the specific details of the dominant paradigm in their field. During this time, they are not distracted by erratic funding sources or theories like astrology or phrenology, which may divert their attention from the established scientific framework. Instead, their efforts are directed towards refining and expanding the existing knowledge base within the accepted paradigm.Rate this question:
-
- 20.
If scientific paradigms are genuinely incommensurable then:
-
Progress in science may be an illusion
-
Progress in science is real
-
Only the social sciences mark progress
Correct Answer
A. Progress in science may be an illusionExplanation
If scientific paradigms are genuinely incommensurable, it means that there is no common ground or shared understanding between different scientific frameworks or theories. In such a scenario, progress in science may be an illusion because there would be no objective criteria to evaluate or compare the advancements made in different paradigms. Without a shared framework for assessing progress, it becomes difficult to determine if scientific knowledge is truly advancing or if it is merely a subjective perception.Rate this question:
-
Quiz Review Timeline (Updated): Mar 19, 2023 +
Our quizzes are rigorously reviewed, monitored and continuously updated by our expert board to maintain accuracy, relevance, and timeliness.
-
Current Version
-
Mar 19, 2023Quiz Edited by
ProProfs Editorial Team -
Mar 02, 2010Quiz Created by
Baileydykman
Back to top