Tok Notes
The problem of Induction – Induction
Science is supposed to be an empirical discipline which makes no claims beyond what has been observed.
Therefore we have a dillema we could refuse to make any claims beyond what we observe and retain the idea of empirical science or we could defend the right of scientist to reason from the particulae to the genréral and accept that science is not strictly empirical.
We could defend the right of science to reason from a particular to the general and accept that science is not strictly.
In science we deduce a theory and extrapolate on that thory to redefine which is to some extent speculation.
We could also just get on with science and see where it leads us.
Falsification karl popper tried to resolve the dilemma.
He tried to distinguish “genuine science “ ( eg. Einsteins theory of relativety)from Pseudo science Marxism or pyschoanalysis.
Psychoanalysis is the study of a persons conscience. As a young man he was impresses by the “ability” of Marx (1818-1883)
Freud ( 1856- 1939) or alfred Asler – inferiority complex (1870-1937) to explain everything.
A problem with a theory in which it tries to explain everything and accordinf to popper a genuninly scientific theory puts it self at risk for completely disproving anything that it is trying to prove.
Falsification - conjections and refutation
Poppers method is based on conjectures and on refutations. There is no mechanical way of coming up with agood hypothesis. We need an idea to help us interpret observes dara in a different way
at what point in the universe did steven hawking think that maybe light can be bent afterall
This is perhaps what copernicus did when he suggeserd that the earth is moving around the sun howevr wht ifthe sun was stationary then wouldnt it have the same effect.
Newtons idea of “gravity” comes from an apple dropping on his head-perhaps. It was newton who took this observation and windered why those kind of thing
Science is supposed to be an empirical discipline which makes no claims beyond what has been observed.
Therefore we have a dillema we could refuse to make any claims beyond what we observe and retain the idea of empirical science or we could defend the right of scientist to reason from the particulae to the genréral and accept that science is not strictly empirical.
We could defend the right of science to reason from a particular to the general and accept that science is not strictly.
In science we deduce a theory and extrapolate on that thory to redefine which is to some extent speculation.
We could also just get on with science and see where it leads us.
Falsification karl popper tried to resolve the dilemma.
He tried to distinguish “genuine science “ ( eg. Einsteins theory of relativety)from Pseudo science Marxism or pyschoanalysis.
Psychoanalysis is the study of a persons conscience. As a young man he was impresses by the “ability” of Marx (1818-1883)
Freud ( 1856- 1939) or alfred Asler – inferiority complex (1870-1937) to explain everything.
A problem with a theory in which it tries to explain everything and accordinf to popper a genuninly scientific theory puts it self at risk for completely disproving anything that it is trying to prove.
Falsification - conjections and refutation
Poppers method is based on conjectures and on refutations. There is no mechanical way of coming up with agood hypothesis. We need an idea to help us interpret observes dara in a different way
at what point in the universe did steven hawking think that maybe light can be bent afterall
This is perhaps what copernicus did when he suggeserd that the earth is moving around the sun howevr wht ifthe sun was stationary then wouldnt it have the same effect.
Newtons idea of “gravity” comes from an apple dropping on his head-perhaps. It was newton who took this observation and windered why those kind of thing