Learning from Mistakes Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn
|
|
- Rosa Barber
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 chapter 36 Learning from Mistakes Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn In 1666 a young scientist was sitting in a garden when an apple fell to the ground. This made him wonder why apples fall straight down, rather than going off to the side or upwards. The scientist was Isaac Newton, and the incident inspired him to come up with his theory of gravity, a theory that explained the movements of planets as well as apples. But what happened next? Do you think that Newton then gathered evidence that proved beyond all doubt that his theory was true? Not according to Karl Popper ( ). Scientists, like all of us, learn from their mistakes. Science progresses when we realize that a particular way of thinking about reality is false. That, in two sentences, was Karl Popper s view of how humanity s best hope for knowledge about the world functions. Before he developed his ideas most people believed that scientists begin with a hunch about how the world is, and then gather evidence that shows their hunch was correct.
2 l e a rn i n g f ro m m i s ta k e s 215 What scientists do, according to Popper, is try to prove their theories are false. Testing a theory involves seeing if it can be refuted (shown to be false). A typical scientist starts with a bold guess or conjecture that he or she then tries to undermine in a series of experiments or observations. Science is a creative and exciting enterprise, but it doesn t prove anything is true all it does is get rid of false views and hopefully edge towards truth in the process. Popper was born in Vienna in Although his family had converted to Christianity, he was descended from Jews and when Hitler came to power in the 1930s Popper wisely left the country, moving first to New Zealand, and later to England where he settled, and took up a post at the London School of Economics. As a young man he had wide-ranging interests in science, psychology, politics and music, but philosophy was his real love. By the end of his life he had made important contributions both to the philosophy of science and to political philosophy. Until Popper started writing about scientific method, many scientists and philosophers believed that the way to do science was to seek out evidence that supported your hypothesis. If you wanted to prove that all swans are white you d make a lot of observations of white swans. If all the swans you looked at were white, it seemed reasonable to assume that your hypothesis All swans are white was true. This style of reasoning goes from All the swans I ve seen are white to the conclusion All swans are white. But clearly a swan that you haven t observed could turn out to be black. There are black swans in Australia, for example, and in many zoos around the world. So the statement All swans are white doesn t follow logically from the evidence. Even if you have looked at thousands of swans and they were all white, it could still be false. The only way to prove conclusively that they
3 216 a l i t t l e h i s t o ry o f ph i l o s o ph y are all white is to look at every single swan. If just one black swan exists, your conclusion All swans are white will have been falsified. This is a version of the Problem of Induction, a problem that David Hume wrote about in the eighteenth century. Induction is very different from deduction. That is the source of the problem. Deduction is a type of logical argument where if the premises (the starting assumptions) are true the conclusion must be true. So, to take a famous example, All men are mortal and Socrates is a man are two premises from which the logical conclusion Socrates is mortal follows. You would contradict yourself if you agreed that All men are mortal and that Socrates is a man, but denied the truth of the statement Socrates is mortal. That would be like saying Socrates both is and is not mortal. One way of thinking about this is that with deduction the truth of the conclusion is somehow contained within the premises and logic just teases it out. Here s another example of deduction: Premise one: All fish have gills. Premise two: John is a fish. Conclusion: Therefore John has gills. It would be absurd to say that premise one and premise two were true, but that the conclusion was false. That would be completely illogical. Induction is very different from this. Induction usually involves arguing from a selection of observations to a general conclusion. If you notice that it rained every Tuesday for four consecutive weeks, you might generalize from this that it always rains on Tuesdays. That would be a case of Induction. It would only take one dry Tuesday to undermine the claim that it always
4 l e a rn i n g f ro m m i s ta k e s 217 rains on Tuesdays. Four consecutive wet Tuesdays is a small sample of all the possible Tuesdays. But even if you make numerous observations, as with the white swans, you can still be thwarted by the existence of a single case that doesn t fit your generalization: one dry Tuesday or one non-white swan, for example. And that is the Problem of Induction, the problem of justifying relying on the method of induction when it seems so unreliable. How do you know that the next glass of water you drink won t poison you? Answer: all the glasses of water you ve drunk in the past were fine. So you assume that this one will be. We use this kind of reasoning all the time. Yet it seems that we aren t completely justified in putting such faith in it. We assume patterns in nature that may or may not really be there. If you think that science progresses by induction, as many philosophers have done, then you have to face the Problem of Induction. How can science be based on such an unreliable style of reasoning? Popper s view of how science develops neatly avoids this problem. That s because, according to him, science doesn t rely on induction. Scientists start with a hypothesis, an informed guess about the nature of reality. An example might be All gases expand when heated. This is a simple hypothesis, but real-life science involves a great deal of creativity and imagination at this stage. Scientists find their ideas in many places: the chemist August Kekulé, for example, famously dreamt of a snake biting its own tail, which gave him the idea for the hypothesis that the structure of the benzene molecule is a hexagonal ring a hypothesis that has so far stood up to scientists attempts to prove it false. Scientists then find a way of testing this hypothesis in this case, getting a lot of different sorts of gas and heating them. But testing doesn t mean finding evidence to support the hypothesis; it means trying to prove that the hypothesis can survive
5 218 a l i t t l e h i s t o ry o f ph i l o s o ph y attempts to falsify it. Ideally the scientists will look for a gas that doesn t fit the hypothesis. Remember that in the case of the swans it only took one black swan to undermine the generalization that all swans are white. Similarly, it would only take one gas that failed to expand when heated to undermine the hypothesis that All gases expand when heated. If a scientist refutes a hypothesis that is, shows that it is false then that results in a new bit of knowledge: the knowledge that the hypothesis is false. Humanity progresses because we learn something. Observing lots of gases which do expand when heated won t give us knowledge, except perhaps a little more confidence in our hypothesis. But a counter-example really teaches us something. For Popper a key feature of any hypothesis is that it has to be falsifiable. He used this idea to explain the difference between science and what he called pseudo-science. A scientific hypothesis is one that can be proved wrong: it makes predictions that can be shown to be false. If I say There are invisible, undetectable fairies making me type this sentence, then there is no observation that you can make that will prove my statement is false. If the fairies are invisible and don t leave any trace, there is no way of showing that the claim that they exist is false. It is unfalsifiable and so not a scientific statement at all. Popper thought that many statements made about psychoâ analysis (see Chapter 30) were unfalsifiable in this way. He thought they were untestable. For example, if someone says that everyone is motivated by unconscious wishes, there is no test to prove this. Every bit of evidence, including people denying that they are motivated by unconscious wishes, is, according to Popper, merely taken as further proof that psychoanalysis is valid. The psychoanalyst will say, The fact that you deny the unconscious demonstrates that you have a strong unconscious
6 l e a rn i n g f ro m m i s ta k e s 219 wish to challenge your father. But this statement can t be tested because there is no imaginable evidence that could show that it was false. Consequently, Popper argued, psychoanalysis wasn t a science. It couldn t give us knowledge in the way a science could. Popper attacked Marxist accounts of history in the same way, arguing that every possible outcome would count as support for the view that the history of humanity is a history of class struggle. So again, it was based on unfalsifiable hypotheses. In contrast, Albert Einstein s theory that light would be attracted by the sun was falsifiable. That made it a scientific theory. In 1919 observations of the apparent position of stars during an eclipse of the sun failed to refute it. But they might have done. The light from the stars was not normally visible, but under the rare conditions of an eclipse scientists were able to see that the stars apparent positions were where Einstein s theory predicted they would be. If they had seemed to be somewhere else, this would have undermined Einstein s theory of how light is attracted to very heavy bodies. Popper didn t think these observations proved that Einstein s theory was true. But the testability of the theory, and the fact that scientists had been unable to show it to be false, counted in its favour. Einstein made predictions which could have been wrong, but they weren t. Many scientists and philosophers have been deeply impressed by Popper s description of scientific method. Peter Medawar, who won the Nobel Prize for Medicine, for example, said, I think Karl Popper is incomparably the greatest philosopher of science there has ever been. The scientists particularly liked the description of their activity as creative and imaginative; they also felt that Popper understood how they actually went about their work. The philosophers were delighted with the way that
7 220 a l i t t l e h i s t o ry o f ph i l o s o ph y Popper got around the difficult issue of the Problem of Induction too. In 1962, however, the American historian of science and physicist Thomas Kuhn published a book called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which told a different story of how science progresses, one that suggested Popper had got things wrong. Kuhn believed that Popper hadn t looked closely enough at the history of science. If he had he would have seen a pattern emerging. Most of the time what he called normal science goes on. Scientists work within a framework or paradigm that the scientists of that day share. So, for example, before people realized that the earth revolves around the sun, the paradigm was that the sun goes round the earth. Astronomers would do their research within that framework and would have explanations of any evidence that didn t seem to fit with it. Working within this paradigm, a scientist like Copernicus who came up with the idea that the earth goes round the sun would be thought to have made a mistake in his calculations. According to Kuhn, there aren t facts out there waiting to be discovered: instead, the framework or paradigm to some extent fixes what you can think about. Things get interesting when what Kuhn called a paradigm shift happens. A paradigm shift is when a whole way of understanding is overturned. This can happen when scientists find things that don t fit in with the existing paradigm such as observations that didn t make sense within the paradigm that the sun goes round the earth. But even then it can take a long time for people to abandon their old ways of thinking. Scientists who have spent their lives working within one paradigm don t usually welcome a different way of looking at the world. When they do eventually switch to a new paradigm, a period of normal science can begin again, this time working within the
8 l e a rn i n g f ro m m i s ta k e s 221 new framework. And so it goes on. That s what happened when the view that the earth was the centre of the universe was overturned. Once people started to think about the solar system in that way, there was a lot more normal science to do to understand the paths of the planets around the sun. Popper, not surprisingly, didn t agree with this account of the history of science, although he did agree that the concept of normal science was useful. Whether he was like a scientist with an outdated paradigm himself, or had got closer to the truth about reality than Kuhn had, is an intriguing question. Scientists use real experiments; philosophers, on the other hand, tend to invent thought experiments to make their arguments plausible. The philosophers Philippa Foot and Judith Jarvis Thomson have developed a number of carefully constructed thought experiments that reveal important features of our moral thinking.
A Quick Review of the Scientific Method Transcript
Screen 1: Marketing Research is based on the Scientific Method. A quick review of the Scientific Method, therefore, is in order. Text based slide. Time Code: 0:00 A Quick Review of the Scientific Method
More informationThe Problem of Induction and Popper s Deductivism
The Problem of Induction and Popper s Deductivism Issues: I. Problem of Induction II. Popper s rejection of induction III. Salmon s critique of deductivism 2 I. The problem of induction 1. Inductive vs.
More informationBusiness Research: Principles and Processes MGMT6791 Workshop 1A: The Nature of Research & Scientific Method
Business Research: Principles and Processes MGMT6791 Workshop 1A: The Nature of Research & Scientific Method Professor Tim Mazzarol UWA Business School MGMT6791 UWA Business School DBA Program tim.mazzarol@uwa.edu.au
More informationKarl Popper & The Philosophy of Science. What Makes a Theory Scientific?
Karl Popper & The Philosophy of Science What Makes a Theory Scientific? Philosophy of Science The Philosophy of Science deals with many issues, including: The relationship of scientific statements to other
More informationNow you know what a hypothesis is, and you also know that daddy-long-legs are not poisonous.
Objectives: Be able to explain the basic process of scientific inquiry. Be able to explain the power and limitations of scientific inquiry. Be able to distinguish a robust hypothesis from a weak or untestable
More informationWhat Is Science? Mel Conway, Ph.D.
What Is Science? Mel Conway, Ph.D. Table of Contents The Top-down (Social) View 1 The Bottom-up (Individual) View 1 How the Game is Played 2 Theory and Experiment 3 The Human Element 5 Notes 5 Science
More informationPhil 1103 Review. Also: Scientific realism vs. anti-realism Can philosophers criticise science?
Phil 1103 Review Also: Scientific realism vs. anti-realism Can philosophers criticise science? 1. Copernican Revolution Students should be familiar with the basic historical facts of the Copernican revolution.
More informationLecture 6. Realism and Anti-realism Kuhn s Philosophy of Science
Lecture 6 Realism and Anti-realism Kuhn s Philosophy of Science Realism and Anti-realism Science and Reality Science ought to describe reality. But what is Reality? Is what we think we see of reality really
More informationPhilosophy of Science. Ross Arnold, Summer 2014 Lakeside institute of Theology
Philosophy of Science Ross Arnold, Summer 2014 Lakeside institute of Theology Philosophical Theology 1 (TH5) Aug. 15 Intro to Philosophical Theology; Logic Aug. 22 Truth & Epistemology Aug. 29 Metaphysics
More informationVerificationism. PHIL September 27, 2011
Verificationism PHIL 83104 September 27, 2011 1. The critique of metaphysics... 1 2. Observation statements... 2 3. In principle verifiability... 3 4. Strong verifiability... 3 4.1. Conclusive verifiability
More informationScience and Pseudoscience (transcript)
Science and Pseudoscience (transcript) [NB The following transcript of the talk contains additional passages that Lakatos subsequently included in the text version of his talk published in Philosophy in
More informationSession 10 INDUCTIVE REASONONING IN THE SCIENCES & EVERYDAY LIFE( PART 1)
UGRC 150 CRITICAL THINKING & PRACTICAL REASONING Session 10 INDUCTIVE REASONONING IN THE SCIENCES & EVERYDAY LIFE( PART 1) Lecturer: Dr. Mohammed Majeed, Dept. of Philosophy & Classics, UG Contact Information:
More informationWhat. A New Way of Thinking...modern consciousness.
A New Way of Thinking...modern consciousness. What The Renaissance and the Reformation facilitated the breakdown of the medieval worldview. The physical world could be managed and understood by people.
More informationCh01. Knowledge. What does it mean to know something? and how can science help us know things? version 1.5
Ch01 Knowledge What does it mean to know something? and how can science help us know things? version 1.5 Nick DeMello, PhD. 2007-2016 Ch01 Knowledge Knowledge Imagination Truth & Belief Justification Science
More informationPopper s Falsificationism. Philosophy of Economics University of Virginia Matthias Brinkmann
Popper s Falsificationism Philosophy of Economics University of Virginia Matthias Brinkmann Contents 1. The Problem of Induction 2. Falsification as Demarcation 3. Falsification and Economics Popper's
More informationAyer on the criterion of verifiability
Ayer on the criterion of verifiability November 19, 2004 1 The critique of metaphysics............................. 1 2 Observation statements............................... 2 3 In principle verifiability...............................
More informationThere are two common forms of deductively valid conditional argument: modus ponens and modus tollens.
INTRODUCTION TO LOGICAL THINKING Lecture 6: Two types of argument and their role in science: Deduction and induction 1. Deductive arguments Arguments that claim to provide logically conclusive grounds
More informationFalsification or Confirmation: From Logic to Psychology
Falsification or Confirmation: From Logic to Psychology Roman Lukyanenko Information Systems Department Florida international University rlukyane@fiu.edu Abstract Corroboration or Confirmation is a prominent
More informationAPEH Chapter 6.notebook October 19, 2015
Chapter 6 Scientific Revolution During the 16th and 17th centuries, a few European thinkers questioned classical and medieval beliefs about nature, and developed a scientific method based on reason and
More informationEvolution: The Darwinian Revolutions BIOEE 2070 / HIST 2870 / STS 2871
Evolution: The Darwinian Revolutions BIOEE 2070 / HIST 2870 / STS 2871 DAY & DATE: Wednesday 27 June 2012 READINGS: Darwin/Origin of Species, chapters 1-4 MacNeill/Evolution: The Darwinian Revolutions
More informationAPEH ch 14.notebook October 23, 2012
Chapter 14 Scientific Revolution During the 16th and 17th centuries, a few European thinkers questioned classical and medieval beliefs about nature, and developed a scientific method based on reason and
More informationKarl Popper ( )
7 Karl Popper (1902 1994) W. H. NEWTON- SMITH Born in Vienna, Karl Popper studied at the University of Vienna from 1918 to 1922, after which he became apprenticed to a master cabinetmaker, Adalbert Posch.
More informationIlija Barukčić Causality. New Statistical Methods. ISBN X Discussion with the reader.
Jack Himelright wrote: I read an essay of yours, and there are two points which I feel essential to raise. The essay is here: http://www2.unijena.de/svw/metheval/projekte/symposium2006/material/poster_barukcic_causation_and_the_law_of_independence.pdf
More informationBasic Concepts and Skills!
Basic Concepts and Skills! Critical Thinking tests rationales,! i.e., reasons connected to conclusions by justifying or explaining principles! Why do CT?! Answer: Opinions without logical or evidential
More informationWhy We Should Trust Scientists (transcript)
Why We Should Trust Scientists (transcript) 00:11 Every day we face issues like climate change or the safety of vaccines where we have to answer questions whose answers rely heavily on scientific information.
More information5 The epistemology of scientific theorizing
5 The epistemology of scientific theorizing Overview A brief history of empiricism as science s epistemology The epistemology of scientific testing Induction as a pseudo-problem: Popper s gambit Statistics
More informationSydenham College of Commerce & Economics. * Dr. Sunil S. Shete. * Associate Professor
Sydenham College of Commerce & Economics * Dr. Sunil S. Shete * Associate Professor Keywords: Philosophy of science, research methods, Logic, Business research Abstract This paper review Popper s epistemology
More informationHOW TO ANALYZE AN ARGUMENT
What does it mean to provide an argument for a statement? To provide an argument for a statement is an activity we carry out both in our everyday lives and within the sciences. We provide arguments for
More informationModule 1: Science as Culture Demarcation, Autonomy and Cognitive Authority of Science
Module 1: Science as Culture Demarcation, Autonomy and Cognitive Authority of Science Lecture 6 Demarcation, Autonomy and Cognitive Authority of Science In this lecture, we are going to discuss how historically
More informationCharacteristics of Science: Understanding Scientists and their Work (adapted from the work of Prof. Michael Clough)
Characteristics of Science: Understanding Scientists and their Work (adapted from the work of Prof. Michael Clough) What is science? How does science work? What are scientists like? Most people have given
More informationKarl Popper. Science: Conjectures and Refutations (from Conjectures and Refutations, 1962)
Karl Popper Science: Conjectures and Refutations (from Conjectures and Refutations, 1962) Part I When I received the list of participants in this course and realized that I had been asked to speak to philosophical
More informationA Note on Straight-Thinking
A Note on Straight-Thinking A supplementary note for the 2nd Annual JTS/CGST Public Ethics Lecture March 5, 2002(b), adj. 2009:03:05 G.E.M. of TKI Arguments & Appeals In arguments, people try to persuade
More informationDemarcation of Science
Demarcation of Science from other academic disciplines -Demarcation of natural sciences from other academic disciplines -Demarcation of science from technology, pure and applied science -Demarcation of
More informationChapter 2: Two Types of Reasoning
Chapter 2: Two Types of Reasoning In chapter 1, I mentioned deductive and inductive arguments. This chapter goes into more depth on deductive reasoning in particular, but also provides a contrast with
More information- Origen (early Christian theologian, Philocalia
1 2 The parallel between nature and Scripture is so complete, we must necessarily believe that the person who is asking questions of nature and the person who is asking questions of Scripture are bound
More informationAppendix: The Logic Behind the Inferential Test
Appendix: The Logic Behind the Inferential Test In the Introduction, I stated that the basic underlying problem with forensic doctors is so easy to understand that even a twelve-year-old could understand
More informationFINAL EXAM REVIEW SHEET. objectivity intersubjectivity ways the peer review system is supposed to improve objectivity
Philosophy of Science Professor Stemwedel Spring 2014 Important concepts and terminology metaphysics epistemology descriptive vs. normative norms of science Strong Program sociology of science naturalism
More informationIntroduction to Philosophy
Introduction to Philosophy PHIL 2000--Call # 41480 Kent Baldner Teaching Assistant: Mitchell Winget Discussion sections ( Labs ) meet on Wednesdays, starting next Wednesday, Sept. 5 th. 10:00-10:50, 1115
More informationFinal grades will be determined by 6 components: Midterm 20% Final 20% Problem Sets 20% Papers 20% Quizzes 10% Section 10%
course phil 610: Philosophy & Science, Spring 2018 instructors J. Dmitri Gallow ( : jdmitrigallow@pitt.edu) Adam Marushak ( : adshak@gmail.com) lecture times Tuesdays and Thursdays, 14:00 14:50 Room 324,
More informationFEYERABENDCRITIQUE OF FALSIFICATION PRINCIPLE OF KARL POPPER: WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO AGAINST METHOD A PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS
FEYERABENDCRITIQUE OF FALSIFICATION PRINCIPLE OF KARL POPPER: WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO AGAINST METHOD A PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS Journal of Social Review Volume 2 (1) June 2014 Department of Social Sciences
More informationsomeone who was willing to question even what seemed to be the most basic ideas in a
A skeptic is one who is willing to question any knowledge claim, asking for clarity in definition, consistency in logic and adequacy of evidence (adopted from Paul Kurtz, 1994). Evaluate this approach
More informationDo we have knowledge of the external world?
Do we have knowledge of the external world? This book discusses the skeptical arguments presented in Descartes' Meditations 1 and 2, as well as how Descartes attempts to refute skepticism by building our
More informationArgumentation Module: Philosophy Lesson 7 What do we mean by argument? (Two meanings for the word.) A quarrel or a dispute, expressing a difference
1 2 3 4 5 6 Argumentation Module: Philosophy Lesson 7 What do we mean by argument? (Two meanings for the word.) A quarrel or a dispute, expressing a difference of opinion. Often heated. A statement of
More informationThe Nature of Science: Methods for Seeking Natural Patterns in the Universe Using Rationalism and Empiricism Mike Viney
The Nature of Science: Methods for Seeking Natural Patterns in the Universe Using Rationalism and Empiricism Mike Viney Fascination with science often starts at an early age, as it did with me. Many students
More informationLecture 4.2 Aquinas Phil Religion TOPIC: Aquinas Cosmological Arguments for the existence of God. Critiques of Aquinas arguments.
TOPIC: Lecture 4.2 Aquinas Phil Religion Aquinas Cosmological Arguments for the existence of God. Critiques of Aquinas arguments. KEY TERMS/ GOALS: Cosmological argument. The problem of Infinite Regress.
More informationClass 6 - Scientific Method
2 3 Philosophy 2 3 : Intuitions and Philosophy Fall 2011 Hamilton College Russell Marcus I. Holism, Reflective Equilibrium, and Science Class 6 - Scientific Method Our course is centrally concerned with
More informationBaha i Proofs for the Existence of God
Page 1 Baha i Proofs for the Existence of God Ian Kluge to show that belief in God can be rational and logically coherent and is not necessarily a product of uncritical religious dogmatism or ignorance.
More informationThe problems of induction in scientific inquiry: Challenges and solutions. Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction Defining induction...
The problems of induction in scientific inquiry: Challenges and solutions Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction... 2 2.0 Defining induction... 2 3.0 Induction versus deduction... 2 4.0 Hume's descriptive
More informationScientific Method and Research Ethics
Different ways of knowing the world? Scientific Method and Research Ethics Value of Science 1. Greg Bognar Stockholm University September 28, 2018 We know where we came from. We are the descendants of
More information(Quote of Origen, an early Christian theologian not a saint)
1 (Quote of Origen, an early Christian theologian not a saint) 2 Christians once spoke of God making Himself known in two different ways, or through two books : the Book of Revelation and the Book of Nature.
More informationPHLA10 Reason and Truth Exercise 1
Y e P a g e 1 Exercise 1 Pg. 17 1. When is an idea or statement valid? (trick question) A statement or an idea cannot be valid; they can only be true or false. Being valid or invalid are properties of
More informationfrom other academic disciplines
Demarcation of Science from other academic disciplines -Demarcation of natural sciences from other academic disciplines -Demarcation of science from technology, pure and applied science -Demarcation of
More informationIS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD A MYTH? PERSPECTIVES FROM THE HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
MÈTODE Science Studies Journal, 5 (2015): 195-199. University of Valencia. DOI: 10.7203/metode.84.3883 ISSN: 2174-3487. Article received: 10/07/2014, accepted: 18/09/2014. IS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD A MYTH?
More informationClassroom notes for: Radiation and Life Professor: Thomas M. Regan Pinanski 206 ext 3283
Classroom notes for: Radiation and Life 98.101.201 Professor: Thomas M. Regan Pinanski 206 ext 3283 Critical Thinking Science is more than just a collection of facts- it s a way of thinking about the world
More informationPHILOSOPHIES OF SCIENTIFIC TESTING
PHILOSOPHIES OF SCIENTIFIC TESTING By John Bloore Internet Encyclopdia of Philosophy, written by John Wttersten, http://www.iep.utm.edu/cr-ratio/#h7 Carl Gustav Hempel (1905 1997) Known for Deductive-Nomological
More informationEstablishing premises
Establishing premises This is hard, subtle, and crucial to good arguments. Various kinds of considerations are used to establish the truth (high justification) of premises Deduction Done Analogy Induction
More informationE D I T O R I A L WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE?
E D I T O R I A L WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE? Two centuries ago the French mathematician-astronomer Pierre Simon de Laplace developed the nebular hypothesis which proposed that the
More informationExperimental Design. Introduction
Ecologists generally, and marine biologists in particular, do not spend sufficient time, at least according to the available literature, in introspection about the nature of the science that they do Underwood
More informationHUL 841: Philosophy of Science IInd Semester,
HUL 841: Philosophy of Science IInd Semester, 2013-14 Arudra Burra Department of Humanities and Social Science Indian Institute of Technology-Delhi January 6, 2014 Course description History, if viewed
More information1 Scientific Reasoning
1 Scientific Reasoning Scientific reasoning is the foundation supporting the entire structure of logic underpinning scientific research. It is impossible to explore the entire process, in any detail, because
More informationInductive Reasoning.
Inductive Reasoning http://toknow-11.wikispaces.com/file/view/snowflake_logic.png/291213597/snowflake_logic.png Inductive reasoning is which we reason from particular, observed phenomena to generalizations.
More informationPHIL / PSYC 351. Thinking and Reasoning
PHIL / PSYC 351 Thinking and Reasoning The Instructors My name is Jonathan Livengood. I am an assistant professor of philosophy. My primary area of specialization is philosophy of science. Jonathan Livengood
More informationMètode Science Studies Journal ISSN: Universitat de València España
Mètode Science Studies Journal ISSN: 2174-3487 metodessj@uv.es Universitat de València España Sober, Elliott IS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD A MYTH? PERSPECTIVES FROM THE HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Mètode
More informationSAMPLE ESSAY 1: PHILOSOPHY & SOCIAL SCIENCE (1 ST YEAR)
SAMPLE ESSAY 1: PHILOSOPHY & SOCIAL SCIENCE (1 ST YEAR) Before you read the essay This is a very nice essay but it could be improved! Read it through, bearing in mind the comments in the red boxes, and
More informationTheories of epistemic justification can be divided into two groups: internalist and
1 Internalism and externalism about justification Theories of epistemic justification can be divided into two groups: internalist and externalist. Internalist theories of justification say that whatever
More informationINDUCTION. All inductive reasoning is based on an assumption called the UNIFORMITY OF NATURE.
INDUCTION John Stuart Mill wrote the first comprehensive study of inductive logic. Deduction had been studied extensively since ancient times, but induction had to wait until the 19 th century! The cartoon
More informationLecture 6 Keynes s Concept of Probability
Lecture 6 Keynes s Concept of Probability Patrick Maher Scientific Thought II Spring 2010 John Maynard Keynes 1883: Born in Cambridge, England 1904: B.A. Cambridge University 1914 18: World War I 1919:
More informationRevista Economică 66:3 (2014) THE USE OF INDUCTIVE, DEDUCTIVE OR ABDUCTIVE RESONING IN ECONOMICS
THE USE OF INDUCTIVE, DEDUCTIVE OR ABDUCTIVE RESONING IN ECONOMICS MOROŞAN Adrian 1 Lucian Blaga University, Sibiu, Romania Abstract Although we think that, regardless of the type of reasoning used in
More informationChapter 2 Science as a Way of Knowing: Critical Thinking about the Environment
Chapter 2 Science as a Way of Knowing: Critical Thinking about the Environment Understanding What Science Is Scientific understanding of life and its environment is based on scientific method. Science
More informationInductive Inference and Paradigms. What are the assumptions?
Inductive Inference and Paradigms What are the assumptions? What is inference? The process of forming a belief (conclusion), on the basis of evidence (or data, or premises) is called an inference. Some
More informationScience and Worldviews
Science and Worldviews What is a worldview? A worldview is an interlocking system of beliefs about the world. A worldview provides a conceptual framework, or set of background assumptions, that is needed
More informationWelcome back to WHAP! Monday, January 29, 2018
Welcome back to WHAP! Monday, January 29, 2018 Turn your PERIOD 4 MAPS into the tray! We are studying the Scientific Revolution today. Be ready to take some notes. -> Choose an identity for tomorrow s
More information14 IS THERE CAUSALITY IN HISTORY?
14 IS THERE CAUSALITY IN HISTORY? Cyril Höschl My theme is that time acts as a condition limiting the possibilities of science and creating the absolute horizon of our ignorance, and this differs from
More informationORIGINS OF MODERN PHILOSOPHY The Problem of Induction
ORIGINS OF MODERN PHILOSOPHY The Problem of Induction Peter Prevos 23 May 2005 1 Introduction Inductive inferences play an important role on our every day and scientific thinking. Francis Bacon (1561 1626)
More informationHPS 1653 / PHIL 1610 Introduction to the Philosophy of Science
HPS 1653 / PHIL 1610 Introduction to the Philosophy of Science Popper: Falsificationism Adam Caulton adam.caulton@gmail.com Monday 15 September 2014 Popper & Falsificationism Karl Popper (1902-1994) Chalmers,
More information1. Introduction Formal deductive logic Overview
1. Introduction 1.1. Formal deductive logic 1.1.0. Overview In this course we will study reasoning, but we will study only certain aspects of reasoning and study them only from one perspective. The special
More informationINDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE
INDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE Péter Érdi Henry R. Luce Professor Center for Complex Systems Studies Kalamazoo College, Michigan and Dept. Biophysics KFKI Research Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics of
More informationRevelation, Reason, and Demonstration Talk for Glenmont, Columbus, Ohio October 18, 2015 Laurance R. Doyle
Revelation, Reason, and Demonstration Talk for Glenmont, Columbus, Ohio October 18, 2015 Laurance R. Doyle One of the arguments against Christian Science is that it is about blind faith, rather than being
More informationLENT 2018 THEORY OF MEANING DR MAARTEN STEENHAGEN
LENT 2018 THEORY OF MEANING DR MAARTEN STEENHAGEN HTTP://MSTEENHAGEN.GITHUB.IO/TEACHING/2018TOM THE EINSTEIN-BERGSON DEBATE SCIENCE AND METAPHYSICS Henri Bergson and Albert Einstein met on the 6th of
More informationFalsification of Popper and Lakatos (Falsifikace podle Poppera a Lakatose)
E L O G O S ELECTRONIC JOURNAL FOR PHILOSOPHY/2008 ISSN 1211-0442 Falsification of Popper and Lakatos (Falsifikace podle Poppera a Lakatose) Essay for FIL901 Vladim ir Halás ANNOTATION This paper discusses
More informationPhilosophy of Science
Chapter 2 25 Philosophy of Science All men by nature desire knowledge. Aristotle Man, being the servant and interpreter of Nature, can do and understand so much and so much only as he has observed in fact
More informationIDHEF Chapter 2 Why Should Anyone Believe Anything At All?
IDHEF Chapter 2 Why Should Anyone Believe Anything At All? -You might have heard someone say, It doesn t really matter what you believe, as long as you believe something. While many people think this is
More informationUnit. Science and Hypothesis. Downloaded from Downloaded from Why Hypothesis? What is a Hypothesis?
Why Hypothesis? Unit 3 Science and Hypothesis All men, unlike animals, are born with a capacity "to reflect". This intellectual curiosity amongst others, takes a standard form such as "Why so-and-so is
More informationYFIA205 Basics of Research Methodology in Social Sciences Lecture 1. Science, Knowledge and Theory. Jyväskylä 3.11.
YFIA205 Basics of Research Methodology in Social Sciences Lecture 1. Science, Knowledge and Theory Jyväskylä 3.11.2014 Petteri Niemi Philosophy of Science There is no such thing as philosophy-free science;
More informationA romp through the foothills of logic Session 3
A romp through the foothills of logic Session 3 It would be a good idea to watch the short podcast Understanding Truth Tables before attempting this podcast. (Slide 2) In the last session we learnt how
More informationWritten by Will Gethin Sunday, 01 September :00 - Last Updated Tuesday, 03 December :12
In April, two open letters from Deepak Chopra and several highly acclaimed scientists, including Stuart Hameroff and Menas C. Kafatos, reprimanding TED s removal of the talks by Graham Hancock (The War
More informationImagination, Intent, Luck, Method, Science. Discuss the meaning of the word premeditated until all students are comfortable with its meaning.
Can Scientific Discovery be Premeditated? by Peter Brian Medawar HS / Science Imagination, Intent, Luck, Method, Science Discuss the meaning of the word premeditated until all students are comfortable
More informationIntroduction to Political Science
Introduction to Political Science What is Science? Reading Ole J. Forsberg, Ph.D. University of Tennessee What is Science? Ole J. Forsberg What is a science? Science is a method of inquiry whose objectives
More informationThe Mechanics of Scientific Belief
University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln UReCA: The NCHC Journal of Undergraduate Research & Creative Activity National Collegiate Honors Council 2017 The Mechanics
More informationA level Religious Studies at Titus Salt
Component 2 Philosophy of Religion Theme 1: Arguments for the existence of God inductive This theme considers how the philosophy of religion has, over time, influenced and been influenced by developments
More informationIntroduction to Philosophy Crito. Instructor: Jason Sheley
Introduction to Philosophy Crito Instructor: Jason Sheley Recall again our steps for doing philosophy 1) What is the question? 2) What is the basic answer to the question? 3) What reasons are given for
More informationLecture 9. A summary of scientific methods Realism and Anti-realism
Lecture 9 A summary of scientific methods Realism and Anti-realism A summary of scientific methods and attitudes What is a scientific approach? This question can be answered in a lot of different ways.
More informationThe Exemplar Approach to Science and Religion
The Exemplar Approach to Science and Religion Abstract We can judge whether some activities are scientific or religious, depending on how similar they are to exemplar scientific activities or to exemplar
More informationIntroduction to Deductive and Inductive Thinking 2017
Topic 1: READING AND INTERVENING by Ian Hawkins. Introductory i The Philosophy of Natural Science 1. CONCEPTS OF REALITY? 1.1 What? 1.2 How? 1.3 Why? 1.4 Understand various views. 4. Reality comprises
More informationPHILOSOPHER S TOOL KIT 1. ARGUMENTS PROFESSOR JULIE YOO 1.1 DEDUCTIVE VS INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS
PHILOSOPHER S TOOL KIT PROFESSOR JULIE YOO 1. Arguments 1.1 Deductive vs Induction Arguments 1.2 Common Deductive Argument Forms 1.3 Common Inductive Argument Forms 1.4 Deduction: Validity and Soundness
More informationCritical Thinking 5.7 Validity in inductive, conductive, and abductive arguments
5.7 Validity in inductive, conductive, and abductive arguments REMEMBER as explained in an earlier section formal language is used for expressing relations in abstract form, based on clear and unambiguous
More informationVirtual Mentor American Medical Association Journal of Ethics January 2013, Volume 15, Number 1:
Virtual Mentor American Medical Association Journal of Ethics January 2013, Volume 15, Number 1: 65-70. MEDICINE AND SOCIETY Paradigms, Coherence, and the Fog of Evidence Dien Ho, PhD It is wrong always,
More informationTheory of Knowledge. 5. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. (Christopher Hitchens). Do you agree?
Theory of Knowledge 5. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. (Christopher Hitchens). Do you agree? Candidate Name: Syed Tousif Ahmed Candidate Number: 006644 009
More informationA Brief History of Thinking about Thinking Thomas Lombardo
A Brief History of Thinking about Thinking Thomas Lombardo "Education is nothing more nor less than learning to think." Peter Facione In this article I review the historical evolution of principles and
More informationCLASS #17: CHALLENGES TO POSITIVISM/BEHAVIORAL APPROACH
CLASS #17: CHALLENGES TO POSITIVISM/BEHAVIORAL APPROACH I. Challenges to Confirmation A. The Inductivist Turkey B. Discovery vs. Justification 1. Discovery 2. Justification C. Hume's Problem 1. Inductive
More information