Karl Popper (1902-1994) Demarcation between science in addition to non-scie

 www.phwiki.com

 

The Above Picture is Related Image of Another Journal

 

Karl Popper (1902-1994) Demarcation between science in addition to non-scie

City University, US has reference to this Academic Journal, Karl Popper (1902-1994) Demarcation between science in addition to non-science Zolt n Dienes, Philosophy of psychology What is science? What is the difference between science in addition to pseudo-science? What is the difference between good science in addition to bad science? On what grounds should some papers submitted so that scientific journals be rejected or accepted? Are Christian Science, Creation Science, Scientology, astrology sciences? If not, why not in addition to why does it matter? Is psychology a science? Good science or bad science? How does knowledge grow? What is science? ÿ ?Systematic in addition to formulated knowledge? (Pocket Oxford) based on empirical observation. ÿ So astrology is a science? Why has there been such an explosive growth in knowledge over the last few hundred years? More generally, what is it that facilitates the growth of knowledge? Need a better demarcation criterion that answers this question. ÿ How can we arrive at knowledge of general rules from empirical observation?

 Reagan, Michael City University www.phwiki.com

 

Related University That Contributed for this Journal are Acknowledged in the above Image

 

Deduction: Going from certain truths so that further certain truths. All swans are white Sam is a swan ____________________ Sam is white ÿ Induction: Going from particular observations so that universal rules. ÿ Sam the swan is white; Georgina the swan is white; Fred the swan is white; ? Emma the swan is white _____________________ All swans are white (?) Inductivists believe that science proceeds by induction; Science is objective because it is based on actual observations rather than just speculation Science goes from particular observation statements inductively so that general rules. David Hume (1711-1776): But how is this possible? How can we ever justify going from particular observations so that universal rules? (We are very confident that the sun will continue so that rise each morning ? but one morning it WILL NOT!) The problem of induction If science is inductive reasoning, in addition to if it is always questionable so that go from particulars so that universals, how is science possible? Problem of induction solved: Induction does not exist. Science consists of freely, creatively inventing theories then testing them. Theories are never shown so that be true, but can be falsified. Testing is deductive: Accepting certain singular statements means by deduction that the theory is false. Science can only work in this way if a theory is falsifiable: the theory says certain things cannot happen.

Problem of induction solved: Induction does not exist. Science consists of freely, creatively inventing theories then testing them. Theories are never shown so that be true, but can be falsified. Testing is deductive: Accepting certain singular statements means by deduction that the theory is false. Science can only work in this way if a theory is falsifiable: the theory says certain things cannot happen. Science consists in proposing falsifiable theories then rigorously attempting so that falsify them: It is only when theories are falsified that we get feedback from Nature in addition to a chance so that improve our knowledge. Theories that survive rigorous attempts at falsification are NOT proved; they are ?corroborated? but can only be held tentatively Popper (1934) Distinguish ? the process of inventing a theory (?the context of discovery?, which is not logical but creative) ? the process of testing the theory (?the context of justification?) There is no particular method of inventing theories. Accept Hume: Cannot go from singular statements (apply so that a specific event or individual) so that universals (a general assertion so that be applied so that an unlimited number of individuals) There is no method of showing a theory is true! BUT one can go from singular statements so that concluding a universal statement is false! Peter the Swan is black _____________________ Not all swans are white So ?All swans are white? cannot be verified by any number of singular statements BUT it can be falsified

Today?s Topics: 1 . Functions in addition to set sizes Set sizes Set sizes Set sizes Set sizes Set sizes Set sizes Set sizes Set sizes Set sizes 3. Infinite set sizes Infinite set sizes Infinite set sizes Infinite set sizes Infinite set sizes Countable sets Countable sets Enumerating the rationals Reals are uncountable Reals are uncountable Reals are uncountable Diagonilaztion

Popper was impressed by two opposing types of experiences in 1919: On the one hand alongside Marxism in addition to psychoanalysis; on the other hand, alongside Einstein. ?Admirers of Marx, Freud in addition to Adler were impressed by the ability of the theories so that explain everything that happened within their domain. They saw confirming instances everywhere; whatever happened always confirmed it. Its truth appeared manifest; people who did not see the truth refused so that because of their class interest or because of their repressions which were crying out in consideration of treatment. A Marxist could not open a newspaper without finding on every page confirming evidence in consideration of his interpretation of history? (1963, p. 45) Popper briefly worked in consideration of Alfred Adler (a student of Freud?s). ?Once in 1919 I reported so that [Adler] a case which did not seem particularly Adlerian, but which he found no difficulty in analysing in terms of his theory of inferiority feelings, although he had not even seen the child. Slightly shocked, I asked him how could he be so sure. ?Because of my thousand-fold experience? he replied; whereupon I could not help saying, ?And alongside this new case, I suppose, your experience has become one thousand-and-one-fold??. What do these confirmations mean if every conceivable case could be interpreted in the light of Adler?s (or Freud?s) theory? How would Adler (Freud, Marx) ever get any indication that he was wrong? Contrast ? a man who pushes a child into water so that drown it ? a man who sacrifices his life attempting so that save the child. According so that Freud: ? the first man suffered from repression (say of some component of the Oedipus complex) ? the second had achieved sublimation. According so that Adler: ? the first man suffered from feelings of inferiority (producing the need so that prove himself that he dared so that commit such a crime) ? in addition to so did the second man (whose need was so that prove himself that he dared so that rescue the child).

If a patient accepts the interpretation: It was the right one If a patient rejects the interpretation, particularly alongside some vigour: It hit pretty close so that home. What would give you the slightest inkling that you, the analyst, were wrong? If we cannot learn from our mistakes, how can we improve our theories? In 1919 Popper went so that a lecture by Einstein which impressed him greatly. Einstein said if in a particular set-up light were not observably bent his general theory of relativity would be untenable. (The prediction was tested in May 1919 by Eddington in addition to the effect was found.) If someone proposes a scientific theory they should answer, as Einstein did ?Under what conditions would I admit that my theory is untenable?? In 1919 Popper went so that a lecture by Einstein which impressed him greatly. Einstein said if in a particular set-up light were not observably bent his general theory of relativity would be untenable. (The prediction was tested in May 1919 by Eddington in addition to the effect was found.) If someone proposes a scientific theory they should answer, as Einstein did ?Under what conditions would I admit that my theory is untenable?? Lakatos: ?I used so that put this question so that Marxists in addition to Freudians: ?Tell me what specific social in addition to historical events would have so that occur in order in consideration of you so that give up your Marxism??. I remember this was accompanied by either stunned silence or confusion. But I was very pleased alongside the effect.? (1999, p. 26)

Falsifiability distinguishes science from non-science (metaphysics) NOT meaningful from nonsense etc Non-falsifiability of Freudian in addition to Alderian views etc does not mean they were not often seeing things correctly ?I personally do not doubt that much of what they say is of considerable importance in addition to may well play its part one day in a psychological science which is testable? (Popper, 1963) Falsifiability distinguishes science from non-science (metaphysics) NOT meaningful from nonsense etc Non-falsifiability of Freudian in addition to Alderian views etc does not mean they were not often seeing things correctly ?I personally do not doubt that much of what they say is of considerable importance in addition to may well play its part one day in a psychological science which is testable? (Popper, 1963) They are like ?myths?. ?Historically speaking almost all scientific theories originate from myths. If a theory is non-scientific or metaphysical it is not thereby found so that be unimportant or nonsensical? But so that get feedback from Nature, the metaphysical frameworks must ultimately provide scientific ? falsifiable – theories Is it actually possible so that distinguish falsifiable in addition to non-falsifiable systems? According so that Popper, observations are always ?theory impregnated?. Theories are needed so that determine what an observation is. Is it an accurate clock or a rigid rod? Can only refer so that our theories so that answer this. (Consider a measurement of : how extroverted a participant is Working memory span) A theoretical system can always escape falsification by e.g. doubting the observations (?The extroversion scale has limited validity?), or changing a definition (?A non-white swan is not a swan?).

Popper 1934: Observation statements are never given directly from experience. Every statement uses universal names, every statement has the character of a theory or hypothesis. ?Here is a glass of water? cannot be verified or justified by any observational experience. Experiences however can motivate observation statements. Popper 1934: Observation statements are never given directly from experience. Every statement uses universal names, every statement has the character of a theory or hypothesis. ?Here is a glass of water? cannot be verified or justified by any observational experience. Experiences however can motivate observation statements. Observation statements are accepted by decision or agreement. Theory dominates experimental work from its initial planning up its finishing touches in the laboratory. We must decide which observation statements we will accept. (The decision is fallible in addition to amounts so that tentatively accepting a low level empirical hypothesis which describes the effect: ?Peter is an extrovert?, ?This extrovert was asleep at 7 am? etc)ÿ Popper (1934): The question of whether a theoretical system as such is falsifiable or not is misconceived. ?It is only alongside regards so that the methods applied so that the system can we ask whether it is a falsifiable theory or not.? Consider: Astrology makes falsifiable predictions but these are scarcely used so that test in addition to modify the theory.

Popper (1934): The question of whether a theoretical system as such is falsifiable or not is misconceived. ?It is only alongside regards so that the methods applied so that the system can we ask whether it is a falsifiable theory or not.? Consider: Astrology makes falsifiable predictions but these are scarcely used so that test in addition to modify the theory. How do scientists as a community treat the theory ? are they seeking so that test in addition to falsify it? (Astrologists in general don?t). Popper (1934): The question of whether a theoretical system as such is falsifiable or not is misconceived. ?It is only alongside regards so that the methods applied so that the system can we ask whether it is a falsifiable theory or not.? Consider: Astrology makes falsifiable predictions but these are scarcely used so that test in addition to modify the theory. How do scientists as a community treat the theory ? are they seeking so that test in addition to falsify it? (Astrologists in general don?t). Decide in advance the sort of observation statements you will accept, the conditions that will falsify your theory. The decision is fallible, so the feedback from nature is noisy, but at least we are exposing ourselves so that feedback! We are giving ourselves a chance so that learn from our mistakes! Popper 1934: To be honest, scientists we must decide so that avoid excuses in consideration of saving a theory The aim of the empirical method is not so that save the lives of untenable systems but, on the contrary, so that select the one which is by comparison the fittest, by exposing them all so that the fiercest struggle in consideration of survival.

Rule: Only revise theories, introduce new theories, or introduce those auxiliary hypotheses that do not diminish the degree of falsifiability of the system Contrast: ?All swans are white except in consideration of Peter? Ad hoc: The amendment so that the theory decreased its falsifiability Rule: Only revise theories, introduce new theories, or introduce those auxiliary hypotheses that do not diminish the degree of falsifiability of the system Contrast: ?All swans are white except in consideration of Peter? Ad hoc: The amendment so that the theory decreased its falsifiability Theory: ?God created the Earth, alongside all current species in it, 4000 years ago? Falsifying evidence: Fossil record Ad hoc amendment: God put the fossil record there so that test our faith. Rule: Only revise theories, introduce new theories, or introduce those auxiliary hypotheses that do not diminish the degree of falsifiability of the system Contrast: ?All swans are white except in consideration of Peter? Ad hoc: The amendment so that the theory decreased its falsifiability Theory: ?God created the Earth, alongside all current species in it, 4000 years ago? Falsifying evidence: Fossil record Ad hoc amendment: God put the fossil record there so that test our faith. In psychology, attempts so that save theories in ways that don?t suggest new tests are often called ?post hoc? The more falsifiable the theory, the more preferable it is as a scientific theory. How can we measure degree of falsifiability?

A potential falsifier is a potential observation statement that would contradict the theory (?Peter the swan is black?) How can one theory be more falsifiable than another? If the class of potential falsifiers is larger. A potential falsifier is a potential observation statement that would contradict the theory (?Peter the swan is black?) How can one theory be more falsifiable than another? If the class of potential falsifiers is larger. E.g. One needs fewer data points so that rule out a straight line relationship than a quadratic A potential falsifier is a potential observation statement that would contradict the theory (?Peter the swan is black?) How can one theory be more falsifiable than another? If the class of potential falsifiers is larger. E.g. One needs fewer data points so that rule out a straight line relationship than a quadratic (Scientists prefer simple theories. But what is simplicity? Simple theories are better testable. Straight lines are simpler than curves.)

?But as in consideration of certain truth, no man has known it Nor will he know it; neither of the gods, Nor yet of all the things of which I speak. And even if by chance he were so that utter The perfect truth, he would himself not know it; For all is but a woven web of guesses ? Xenophanes (570 ? 465 BCE) Popper?s ideas were often endorsed by great scientists. E.g. Feynman: ?The scientist does not try so that avoid showing that the rules are wrong; there is progress in addition to excitement in the exact opposite. He tries so that prove himself wrong as quickly as possible. . . In science we are not interested in where an idea comes from. There is no authority that decides what is a good idea. ? there is no interest in the background of the author of an idea or his motive in expounding it. You listen in addition to if it sounds like a thing worth trying you get excited?? Feynman emphasized the fallibility of all scientific knowledge in addition to the importance of doubt not certainty: ?If we did not doubt we would not get any new ideas?. (1998/1963)

Reagan, Michael Lifestyle Reporter

Reagan, Michael is from United States and they belong to Lifestyle Reporter and work for Arizona Republic in the AZ state United States got related to this Particular Article.

Journal Ratings by City University

This Particular Journal got reviewed and rated by Rule: Only revise theories, introduce new theories, or introduce those auxiliary hypotheses that do not diminish the degree of falsifiability of the system Contrast: ?All swans are white except in consideration of Peter? Ad hoc: The amendment so that the theory decreased its falsifiability Rule: Only revise theories, introduce new theories, or introduce those auxiliary hypotheses that do not diminish the degree of falsifiability of the system Contrast: ?All swans are white except in consideration of Peter? Ad hoc: The amendment so that the theory decreased its falsifiability Theory: ?God created the Earth, alongside all current species in it, 4000 years ago? Falsifying evidence: Fossil record Ad hoc amendment: God put the fossil record there so that test our faith. Rule: Only revise theories, introduce new theories, or introduce those auxiliary hypotheses that do not diminish the degree of falsifiability of the system Contrast: ?All swans are white except in consideration of Peter? Ad hoc: The amendment so that the theory decreased its falsifiability Theory: ?God created the Earth, alongside all current species in it, 4000 years ago? Falsifying evidence: Fossil record Ad hoc amendment: God put the fossil record there so that test our faith. In psychology, attempts so that save theories in ways that don?t suggest new tests are often called ?post hoc? The more falsifiable the theory, the more preferable it is as a scientific theory. How can we measure degree of falsifiability? and short form of this particular Institution is US and gave this Journal an Excellent Rating.