Perangkat Ilmu
Penjelasan Aturan
Mencakup
Teori Model dan Paradigma Dan sejenisnya
Variabel
Berkenaan dengan apa dari atribut siapa obyek makhluk benda peristiwa
Abjad Latin
A B X Y a b c . . .
Abjad Yunani
. . .
Definisi Operasional
Batasan pengertian berkenaan dengan cara pengukurannya
Biasanya rumusan definisi berupa satu kalimat saja sedangkan pengertian luas atau pengertian lengkapnya dijelaskan di dalam konsep atau konstruk
PLATOS MAN At one meeting of the Academy in ancient Athens, the Platonists are said to have defined man as a featherless animal with two feet. When Diogenes heard the definition, he plucked all the feathers off a cock, took the poor bird to the Academy where the Platonists were in solemn conclave, threw it down among them and said, Platos man. Whereupon the members put their heads together again and after appropriate consideration of the matter added to the definition the phrase without claws. (quoted from Ralph Brosoli, The Definition of Definition, as quoted by Morris Freilich)
Sesuatu yang sama bisa saja memiliki uraian konsep yang berbeda karena perbedaan bidang ilmu, aliran, atau pakar Dicari dari literatur; memerlukan diskusi
Memerlukan alat ukur yang valid dan dapat dipercaya hasil ukurnya
Sekor
Angka atau bilangan pada atribut dari subyek yang diperoleh melalui aturan tertentu (pengukuran)
Numerik
Memerlukan alat ukur yang valid dan dapat dipercaya hasil ukurnya
2. Hipotesis
Hipotesis adalah rumusan pernyataan ilmiah sebagai jawaban terhadap masalah serta masih memerlukan pengujian empiris Rumusan hipotesis harus sepadan dengan rumusan masalah (supaya dicocokkan) Biasanya dinyatakan dalam bentuk kalimat pernyataan
Hipotesis Deduktif
Dari premis mayor (teori, hukum, asumsi) dan premis minor (kasus yang dipertanyakan di dalam masalah) dengan armentasi (logika) ilmiah dihasilkan keterkaitan variabel Hipotesis ini diuji secara empiris (sering melalui sampel dan diinferensi ke populasi)
AXIOM Axiom, in logic, an indemonstrable first principle, rule, or maxim, that has found general acceptance or is thought worthy of common acceptance whether by virtue of a claim to intrinsic merit or on the basis of an appeal to selfevidence. An example would be: Nothing can be both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. In Euclids Elements the first principles were listed as postulates and common notions. The former are principles of geometry and seem to have been thought of as required assumptions because their statement opened with let there be demanded ( thesth ). The common notions are evidently the same as axioms of Aristotle, who deemed axioms the first principles from which all demonstrative sciences must start; indeed Proclus, the last important Greek philosopher (On the First Book of Euclid), stated explicitly that the notion and axiom are synonymous. The principle distinguishing postulates from axioms, however, does not seem certain. Proclus debated various accounts of it; among them that postulates are peculiar to geometry whereas axioms are common either to all sciences that are concerned with quantity or to all sciences whatever. In modern times, mathematicians have often used the words postulate and axiom as synonyms. Some recommend that the term axiom be reserved for the axioms of logic and postulate for those assumptions or first principles beyond the principles of logic by which a
Particular mathematical discipline is defined. AXIOMATIC METHOD Axiomatic method, in logic, a procedure by which an entire system (e.g., a science) is generated in accordance with specified rules by logical deduction from certain basic propositions (axioms or postulates), which in turn are constructed from a few terms taken as primitive. These terms and axioms may either be arbitrarily defined and constructed or else be conceived according to a model in which some intuitive warrant for their truth is felt to exist. The oldest examples of axiomatized systems are Aristotles syllogistic and Euclids geometry. Early in the present century Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead attempted to formalize all of mathematics in an axiomatic manner. Scholars have even subjected the empirical sciences to this method, as J.H. Woodger has done in The Axiomatic Method in Biology (1937) and Clark Hull (for psychology) in Principles of Behaviour (1943).
Hanya ada satu garis lurus yang menghubungkan dua titik yang diketahui
A ---------------------------- B
Jika suatu titik O bergerak dari A ke B sepanjang suatu garis lurus AB, maka O harus melewati suatu titik yang membagi AB ke dalam dua bagian yang sama besarnya
--A-----------------0-----------------B--
Asumsi Ptolemaeus
Semua benda langit beredar mengelilingi bumi dalam bentuk lingkarran
Asumsi Determinisme
Di dalam alam ada sebab-akibat Di dalam alam ada keteraturan
Asumsi Empirisisme
Ada pengalaman, klasifikasi, kuantifikasi, hubungan, serta pendekatan ke ke kebenaran
Contoh Postulat
Postulat Geometri
Dengan mistar dan jangka,
dapat dilukis garis lurus dari suatu titik ke titik lain dapat dihasilkan garis lurus terhingga dengan sebarang panjang dapat dilukis lingkaran dengan sebarang titik sebagai pusat dan jari-jari sebarang panjang
G !K
mM
r2
yang teruji atau dapat diuji kebenarannya Hubungan invarian (matematik atau statistik) di antara konsep ilmiah (ada kalanya dapat dituangkan ke dalam bentuk rumus)
hubungan korelasi atau ketergantungan hubungan sebab akibat urutan tak berubah
mis. Urutan siang dan malam
Hukum Snellius
Pada pantulan cahaya sudut pantul = sudut masuk
Hukum Avogadro
Di dalam satu gram-mol zat terdapat 6. 1023 molekul
Hukum empirik
generalisasi yang mengacu kepada obyek atau ciri yahg dapat diobservasi secara langsung mis. Hukum Boyle tentang tekanan dan volume gas ada kalanya berbentuk pendekatan (approximation)
Hukum statistik
menunjukkan keteraturan menurut suatu persentase tertentu (berdasarkan probabilitas) mis. Prediksi cuaca, keluruhan inti atom uranium dapat melakukan prediksi dengan kecermatan agak rendah
SCIENTIFIC THEORY Scientific theory, systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the imagination of man, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed or posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner. In attempting to explain the things and events that he is presented with, the scientist employs (1) careful observation or experiments, (2) reports of regularities that he has found, and (3) systematic explanatory schemes (theories). The statements of regularities, if accurate, may be taken as empirical laws expressing continuing relationships among the things or characteristics observed. Thus, when empirical laws satisfy the scientists curiosity by uncovering an orderliness in the behaviour of things or events, he may advance a systematic scheme, or scientific theory, to provide an accepted explanation of why these laws obtain. Empirical laws and scientific theories differ in several ways. In a Law, reasonably clear observational rules are available for determining the meaning of each of its terms; thus, a law can be tested by carefully observing the things and properties referred to by these terms. Indeed, they are
Initially formulated by generalizing or schematizing from observed relationships. In the case of scientific theories, however, some of the terms commonly refer to things that are not observed. This feature reveals the fact that theories are imaginative constructions of the human mind--the results of philosophical and aesthetic judgments as well as observation--for they are only suggested by observational information rather than inductively generalized from it. Moreover, theories cannot ordinarily tested and accepted on the same grounds as laws. Thus, whereas as empirical law expresses a unifying relationship among a small selection of observables, scientific theories have much greater scope, explaining a variety of such laws and predicting others as yet undiscovered. A theory may be characterized as a postulational system (a set of premises) form which empirical laws are deducible as theorems. Thus, it gave an abstract logical form, with axioms, formation rules, and rules for drawing deductions from the axioms, as well as definitions for empirically interpreting its symbols. In practice, however, theories are seldom structured so carefully.
Parsimoni
Teori dikontrol oleh parsimoni yakni harus yang paling sederhana (pisau cukur Ochkam)
Wujud Paradigma
model fisik (maket bangunan, manekin) model matematika (rumus) simulasi (planetarium)
PHLOGISTON In early chemical theory, hypothetical principle of fire, of which every combustible substance was in part composed. In this view, the phenomenon of burning, now called oxidation, was caused by the liberation of phlogiston, with the dephlogisticated substance left as an ash or residue. Johann Joachim Becher in 1669 set forth his view that substances contained three kinds of earth, which he called vitrifiable, the mercurial, and the combustible. He supposed that, when a substance burned, combustible earth (Latin terra pinguis, meaning fat earth) was liberated. Thus, wood was a combination of phlogiston and wood ashes. To this hypothetical substance Georg Ernst Stahl, at about the beginning of the 18th century, applied the name phlogiston (from Greek, meaning burned). Stahl believed that the corrosion of metals in air (e.g., the rusting of iron) was also a form of combustion. The function of air was merely to carry away the liberated phlogiston. The major objection to the theory, that the ash of substances weighed less than the original when the calx was heavier than the metal, was of little significance to Stahl, who thought of phlogiston as an immaterial principle rather than as an actual substance. As chemist-
ry advanced, phlogiston was considered a true substance, and much effort was expended in accounting for the weight changes observed. When hydrogen, very light in weight and extremely flammable, was discovered, some thought it was pure phlogiston. The phlogiston theory was discredited by Antoine Lavoisier between 1770 and 1790. He studied the gain of loss of weight when tin, lead, phosphorus, and sulfur underwent reactions of oxidation or reduction (deoxidation); and he showed that the newly discovered element oxygen was always involved. Although a number of chemistnotably Joseph Priestley, one of the discoverers of oxygentried to retain some form of phlogiston theory, by 1800 practically every chemist recognized the correctness of Lavoisiers oxygen theory.
Teori Newton
Tidak cocok untuk planet Uranus Ditemukan planet Neptunus yang mengganggu gerak Uranus sehingga tampak tidak cocok dengan teori Newton
Teori Paritas
Dianut oleh fisikawan Kemudian ditinggalkan karena tidak cocok
Kebenaran Teori
Kita tidak dapat mengatakan teori itu benar atau tidak benar; yang dapat dikatakan bahwa teori itu masih cocok untuk menerangkan gelaja yang teramati Teori dapat ditinggalkan orang karena orang menganut teori lain; tetapi dalam keadaan tertentu, orang dapat kembali ke teori yang telah ditinggalkan
Falsifikasi
Untuk menjadi bagian dari ilmu, hipotesis, hukum, teori harus memiliki kemampuan untuk palsu Kepalsuan akan tampak manakala ada amatan logis yang tidak cocok dengan hipotesis, hukum, teori Hipotesis, hukum, teori yang tidak memiliki kemampuan untuk palsu, bukan bagian dari ilmu
Contoh falsifikasi
Relativitas Einstein
Dengan teorinya, Einstein menghitung lenturan cahaya karena melewati daerah dekat massa matahari Diuji pada gerhana matahari tahun 1919, ternyata cocok Kalau hitungan Einstein tidak cocok dengan kenyataan maka teori Einstein keliru
Derajat falsifiabel menjadi ukuran keluasan atau keumuman suatu teori Suatu teori makin baik jika derajat falsifiabelnya makin tinggi
Modifikasi
Dapat juga teori yang tidak cocok dengan kenyataan dimodifikasi Modifikasi berukuran lebih besar dan diuji lagi Melalui modifikasi, teori yang bertahan, bisa terus bertahan; kalau tidak bertahan, teori itu bisa ditinggalkan orang Contoh: Hukum Newton pada planet Uranus
Permukaan bulan
Menurut Aristoteles, bulan bulat sempurna Setelah diteropong, permukaan bulan bergunung, maka dibuat modifikasi ad hoc Permukaan bulan ditutup oleh zat yang tak tampak di teropong; bulan tetap bulat sempurna
Phlogiston
Dulu pembakaran dan karatan dianggap terjadi karena di dalam zat ada phlogiston (bakar) Phlogiston keluar terjadi kebakaran atau karatan, sehingga zat menjadi ringan Ada kasus karatan, zat bertambah berat; perlu dimodifikasi ad hoc Ada phlogiston positif dan negatif
Lenyap
Karena sering tidak cocok dengan pengalaman Karena setelah dimodifikasi, masih saja tidak cocok dengan kenyataan Karena bersama ketidakcocokan, muncul teori baru yang menjadi lawannya
PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE: SIR KARL POPPER Popper has devoted much of his career to answering the questions: What is science? How is science performed? Although these questions may at first seem easy to you, consider such areas as astrology and Marxism. Could these approaches be considered scientific? Why not? Falsificationism is the name given to Poppers description of how science is performed. Falsificationism suggests that science should be concerned with disproving or falsifying theories through logic based on observation. How is this accomplished? First, a scientist must create a consistent falsifiable hypothesis. A falsifiable hypothesis is one that can be shown to be false. For example, the hypothesis It will rain in Tuscaloosa, Arizona, on Tuesday, December 23, 1997 is a testable hypothesis. Likewise the hypothesis All objects regardless of weight will fall to earth at approximately the same speed is a testable hypothesis. However, a hypothesis such as ESP (extrasensory perception) exists is an untestable hypothesis. Even the hypothesis Gravity exists is untestable. It may be true that both ESP and gravity exist, yet until the hypothesis is stated in a form that can be falsified, the hypothesis is not testable. Second, once a scientist has a falsifiable hypothesis, the task is to develop a test of the hypothesis. Third, the hypothesis is tested. Fourth, if the hypothesis is shown to be false, a new bold hypothesis is developed.
Heuristik
Lakatos mengemukakan heuristik positif dan negatif Heuristik positif adalah hal yang dianjurkan untuk dilakukan Heuristik negatif adalah hal yang dianjurkan untuk tidak dilakukan (termasuk tidak langsung menolak teori anutan yang tidak cocok dengan kenyataan)
Lakatos and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programs (from Arun Bala, NUS) Lakatos defines a research program as having a hard core and a protective belt, and he specifies heuristic rules that tells us how to deal with the hardcore and the protective belt. Let us examine this more closely (a) The hard core is the set of methodological and ontological commitments that define the program. (b) The protective belt are the auxiliary theories that can be adjusted and modified to bear the brunt of tests of the program. He then defines the strategy for developing the program by appeal to two heuristic rules (c) The negative heuristic are rules that forbid any modification of alteration of the hard core so long as we are working within the program. (d) The positive heuristic are rules that allow us to modify the auxiliary and observational theories used in conjunction with the hard core to explain phenomena so long as these modifications are progressive. Modifications are progressive only if they lead to an increase in the scope of success of the research program by explaining all the phenomena explained by the research program in the past and leading to some successful novel predictions.
We can illustrate this by considering the Copernican theory. The hard core of the Copernican theory is that the earth is spinning on its axis and the that the planets revolve around the sun. The hard core of Copernican theory is different from the hard core of the earthcentered Ptolemic theory it replaced. For Ptolemic central assumptions were that the earth was stationery and the sun, moon and planets rotated around the earth. The protected belt of the Copernican theory are other auxiliary, less crucial assumptions that are required in order to make the theory work. Copernican assumed that the planets moved in epicyclesthis was needed by him to make specific predictions. However, Kepler modified this protective belt assumption in the Copernican theory by suggesting the planets moved in elliptical orbits around the sun The negative heuristic of the Copernican research program tells us that we cannot violate the central (hard core) of the Copernican theory without rejecting the program. Someone who rejects the idea that the planets revolve around the sun would not be working within the Copernican research program. The positive heuristics of Lakatos is more interesting. It requires that anyone who modifies the protective belt of a research program must do so in order to widen the
the scope of explanation of the program as well as predict some novel phenomenon. Thus Kepler rejected Copernicus claim that planets moved in epicycles and proposed that they moved in ellipses. Did this increase the scope of the research program? Yes because it could be used to make more precise predictions and, therefore, increased the scope of applicability of Copernicus theory. More accurate predictions meant that Keplers theory fitted the data observed better than Copernicuss original theory. Did Kepler make any novel predictions? Yes, Kepler used his theory to show that each planets period of revolution aound the sun obeyed two periodic laws (what is now called Keplers second and third laws in contrast to his first law which states that the planets move in elliptical paths around the sun).
PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE: IMRE LAKATOS Imre Lakatos suggests that the important advances in science are made through the adherence to research programs. By saying this, Lakatos means that science is more than following trial-and-error hypotheses. A research program is the examination of a number of major and minor hypotheses concerning a topic. Some examples Lakatos gives of research programs are Newtons theory of gravity, Einsteins relativity theory, and the theories of Freud. An important point, specifies Lakatos, is whether the research program is progressive or degenerating. How do you tell the difference? The main characteristic of a progressive research program is that it predicts novel facts. Thus a progressive program leads to the discovery of new facts, whereas a degenerating program only interprets known facts in light of that theory. By this he means that a degenerating research program only explains the results of already existing experiments, whereas a progressive research program leads one into new directions and predicts new facts. In this way, Lakatos proposes that science changes not by sudden revolutions, as Kuhn suggested, but through the replacement of degenerating research programs with progressive ones.
Kedua
Paradigma menspesifikasikan metoda, teknik, dan alat yang layak di dalam inkuiri untuk mempelajari obyek pada wilayah aplikasi yang relevan
Ketiga
Penganut paradigma berbeda akan mendukung perangkat tujuan dan ideal yang berbeda
Krisis
Jika muncul banyak anomali, maka teori normal mengalami krisis
Teori revolusioner
Paradigma tandingan yang dapat mengatasi anomali
Penggantian teori
Dalam keadaan tertentui, teori revolusioner dapat saja menggantikan teori normal; kemudian teori revolusioner ini menjadi teori normal (sampai krisis lagi) dan berlangsung secara siklus
PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE: THOMAS KUHN When Newton said, I stand on the shoulders of giants, he was referring to those individuals who came before him and on whose work he was able to build his scientific system. Many of us have similar ideas when it comes to the progression of science. We think that each new discovery is simply added to old discoveries with the result being a gradual accumulation of knowledge. In 1962, Thomas Kuhn suggested that this view is wrong. Kuhn proposed that science actually goes through a series of revolutions. Following each revolution, a new system or method for performing science is instituted. The new system or world view is referred to as a paradigm or set of assumptions, which guide scientific activity until a new revolution and paradigm shift take place. The stable period between revolutions is referred to as normal science. Normal science is the process of problem solving, which most of us think of when someone uses the term science. Normal science for Kuhn is always science performed in relation to a particular paradigm. As an example of the role of paradigms, assume you were a mapmaker before the time of Columbus. You would draw your map as if the world were flat, since that was the accepted belief. You, as a mapmaker, would never think to question this belief; it was a given in your task of drawing maps. Then in the Middle Ages, there was there was the mapmakers version of a scientific revolution. The
paradigm shifted to that of a world that was round. As a mapmaker, you would now draw the world as if it were round and you would continue with this system until a new revolution came along. This, of course, was the replacing of the earth as the center of the solar system with the sun as the center. In the same way that mapmakers work in relation to present-day assumptions and beliefs about the world, Kuhn suggests that scientists also work in relation to a set of beliefs or paradigms until these are replaced by a revolution.