The document summarizes the perspectives of Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend, and Imre Lakatos on the philosophy of science. Thomas Kuhn argued that science progresses through paradigms and paradigm shifts, rather than through a uniform progression. Paul Feyerabend believed there is no rational scientific progress even within paradigms, and that creativity and social factors are more important. Imre Lakatos sought to balance rational scientific progress with Kuhn's ideas by proposing research programs that allow for development over time.
A brief introduction do the Philosophy of Science for information scientists and technologists. This is also Chapter 1 of my course on Qualitative Research.
Science v Pseudoscience: What’s the Difference? - Kevin KorbAdam Ford
Science has a certain common core, especially a reliance on empirical methods of assessing hypotheses. Pseudosciences have little in common but their negation: they are not science.
They reject meaningful empirical assessment in some way or another. Popper proposed a clear demarcation criterion for Science v Rubbish: Falsifiability. However, his criterion has not stood the test of time. There are no definitive arguments against any pseudoscience, any more than against extreme skepticism in general, but there are clear indicators of phoniness.
Post: http://www.scifuture.org/science-vs-pseudoscience
FOAR701 Research Paradigms lecture notes on hermeneutics and symbolic interpretation of culture: Heidegger, Gadamer, Geertz, and Darnton are central. From Macquarie University Faculty of Arts, Masters of Research.
Critical realism is the concept which is being constructed by well known British philosopher Bhaskar Roy. He says that world poses two reality i.e. social reality and the other is the natural reality which is the pioneer of the structures which constructs the social reality. Those underline mechanism which operates in this structure if could be comprehended then the objectivity of any event can be derived to the human kind (Bhaskar, 1989
A brief introduction do the Philosophy of Science for information scientists and technologists. This is also Chapter 1 of my course on Qualitative Research.
Science v Pseudoscience: What’s the Difference? - Kevin KorbAdam Ford
Science has a certain common core, especially a reliance on empirical methods of assessing hypotheses. Pseudosciences have little in common but their negation: they are not science.
They reject meaningful empirical assessment in some way or another. Popper proposed a clear demarcation criterion for Science v Rubbish: Falsifiability. However, his criterion has not stood the test of time. There are no definitive arguments against any pseudoscience, any more than against extreme skepticism in general, but there are clear indicators of phoniness.
Post: http://www.scifuture.org/science-vs-pseudoscience
FOAR701 Research Paradigms lecture notes on hermeneutics and symbolic interpretation of culture: Heidegger, Gadamer, Geertz, and Darnton are central. From Macquarie University Faculty of Arts, Masters of Research.
Critical realism is the concept which is being constructed by well known British philosopher Bhaskar Roy. He says that world poses two reality i.e. social reality and the other is the natural reality which is the pioneer of the structures which constructs the social reality. Those underline mechanism which operates in this structure if could be comprehended then the objectivity of any event can be derived to the human kind (Bhaskar, 1989
1.1 Nature of Science
1.1.1 What is Science?
The word science derives from the Latin.
The Latin verb “scire” means “to know”
The Latin noun “scientia” means “knowledge”
Science is the study of the natural world through observation and experiment. A scientific explanation uses observations and measurements to explain something we see in the natural world. Scientific explanations should match the evidence and be logical, or they should at least match as much of the evidence as possible.
1.1.2 Why is science so useful?
Scientific knowledge is the most reliable knowledge we have about the natural world.
Science has enabled much of our work in space exploration, modern medicine, agriculture, and technology
1.1.3 Types of Science
Natural versus Social Sciences
Scientific fields are commonly divided into two major groups: natural sciences, which study natural phenomena (including biological life), and social sciences, which study human behavior and societies.
Basic versus Applied Sciences
Basic science is the search for new knowledge. It is curiosity driven, and does not have to have any purpose other than building the body of scientific knowledge.
Applied science is the search for solutions to practical problems using this knowledge.
1.1.4. Students who are proficient in science:
know, use, and interpret scientific explanations of the natural world;
generate and evaluate scientific evidence and explanations;
understand the nature and development of scientific knowledge
participate productively in scientific practices and discourse.
1.1.5.
THE STRUCTURE OFSCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION -Thomas Kuhn Nouran Adel
Thomas Kuhn is most famous for his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) in which he presented the idea that science does not evolve gradually toward truth, but instead undergoes periodic revolutions which he calls "paradigm shifts."
"Promoting Happiness, Demoting Authority: Richard Rorty's Pragmatic Turn Revisited"/"Pragmatism and the Pursuit of Hope and Happiness"... presented Feb.25-26, 2022, American Philosophical Association Central Division, Palmer House Chicago--William James Society/Society for the Advancement of American Philosophy (SAAP)
The systematic study of science and religion was started in 1960s. Science and religion had been defacto Western science and Christianity for the past fifty years. One way to distinguish between science and religion is that Science concerns the natural world, whereas Religion concerns both the natural and the supernatural world. Barbour’s 4 models of science and religion interactions are Conflict, Independence, Dialogue, and Integration Models. Some philosophers suggest that Christianity was instrumental in catalyzing scientific revolution. Contemporary lack of scientific prominence is remarkable in the Islamic World. The two views of divine action are general divine action and special divine action. Evolutionary ethics & Implications of the cognitive science of religion are areas of increasing interest in science and religion.
IMMANUEL KANT MORALITY PERSPECTIVE
Morality is not the doctrine of how we may make ourselves happy, but how we may make ourselves worthy of happiness. We are not rich by what we possess but by what we can do without.
1.1 Nature of Science
1.1.1 What is Science?
The word science derives from the Latin.
The Latin verb “scire” means “to know”
The Latin noun “scientia” means “knowledge”
Science is the study of the natural world through observation and experiment. A scientific explanation uses observations and measurements to explain something we see in the natural world. Scientific explanations should match the evidence and be logical, or they should at least match as much of the evidence as possible.
1.1.2 Why is science so useful?
Scientific knowledge is the most reliable knowledge we have about the natural world.
Science has enabled much of our work in space exploration, modern medicine, agriculture, and technology
1.1.3 Types of Science
Natural versus Social Sciences
Scientific fields are commonly divided into two major groups: natural sciences, which study natural phenomena (including biological life), and social sciences, which study human behavior and societies.
Basic versus Applied Sciences
Basic science is the search for new knowledge. It is curiosity driven, and does not have to have any purpose other than building the body of scientific knowledge.
Applied science is the search for solutions to practical problems using this knowledge.
1.1.4. Students who are proficient in science:
know, use, and interpret scientific explanations of the natural world;
generate and evaluate scientific evidence and explanations;
understand the nature and development of scientific knowledge
participate productively in scientific practices and discourse.
1.1.5.
THE STRUCTURE OFSCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION -Thomas Kuhn Nouran Adel
Thomas Kuhn is most famous for his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) in which he presented the idea that science does not evolve gradually toward truth, but instead undergoes periodic revolutions which he calls "paradigm shifts."
"Promoting Happiness, Demoting Authority: Richard Rorty's Pragmatic Turn Revisited"/"Pragmatism and the Pursuit of Hope and Happiness"... presented Feb.25-26, 2022, American Philosophical Association Central Division, Palmer House Chicago--William James Society/Society for the Advancement of American Philosophy (SAAP)
The systematic study of science and religion was started in 1960s. Science and religion had been defacto Western science and Christianity for the past fifty years. One way to distinguish between science and religion is that Science concerns the natural world, whereas Religion concerns both the natural and the supernatural world. Barbour’s 4 models of science and religion interactions are Conflict, Independence, Dialogue, and Integration Models. Some philosophers suggest that Christianity was instrumental in catalyzing scientific revolution. Contemporary lack of scientific prominence is remarkable in the Islamic World. The two views of divine action are general divine action and special divine action. Evolutionary ethics & Implications of the cognitive science of religion are areas of increasing interest in science and religion.
IMMANUEL KANT MORALITY PERSPECTIVE
Morality is not the doctrine of how we may make ourselves happy, but how we may make ourselves worthy of happiness. We are not rich by what we possess but by what we can do without.
RelativismEpistemic RelativismWe have now presented a philos.docxcarlt4
Relativism
Epistemic Relativism
We have now presented a philosophical argument behind the whole basis of accepted scientific truth.
Let's introduce another philosophical term important in that dabate:
Epistemic Relativism: the position that knowledge is valid only relatively to a specific context, society, culture or individual.
In the following video, Duncan Pritchard, from the University of Edinburgh introduces the concept of Epistemic Relativism. You will learn about the well-known Bellarmine–Galileo controversy about the validity of Ptolemy’s geocentric system vs Copernicus’s heliocentric system, This historical episode is well documented, and it has been the battleground of important discussions about what epistemologists call epistemic relativism, namely the view that norms of reasoning and justification for our knowledge claims seem to be relative.
From "The Little Thinker‘s Blog“
This historical example illustrates the epistemic relativist’s ‘no neutral ground’ argument, and the difficulty of identifying a common ground or a common measure to assess and evaluate knowledge claims in their historical and social context.
** Content from Online Course: Philosophy and the Sciences: Introduction to the Philosophy of Physical Sciences by The University of Edinburgh
https://youtu.be/MYnZgJeOqqg
Popper's Falsification
From inductivism to Popper’s falsification
From: Philosophy and the Science for Everyone by Michela Massimi. ISBN: 9781138785434
Karl Popper
Philosophers of science are interested in understanding the nature of scientific knowledge and its distinctive features. For a very long time, they strove to find what they thought might be the distinctive method of science, the method that would allow scientists to make informed decisions about what counts as a scientific theory.
The importance of demarcating good science from pseudo-science is neither otiose nor a mere philosophical exercise. It is at the very heart of social policy, when decisions are taken at the governmental level about how to spend taxpayers’ money.
Karl Popper (28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994) was, undoubtedly, one of the most influential philosophers of the early twentieth century to have contributed to the debate about demarcating good science from pseudo-science. In this section we very briefly review some of his seminal ideas.
Popper’s battleground was the social sciences. At the beginning of the twentieth century, in the German-speaking world, a lively debate took place between the so-called Naturwissenschaften (the natural sciences, including mathematics, physics, and chemistry) and the Geisteswissenschaften (the human sciences, including psychology and the emergent psychoanalysis), and whether the latter could rise to the status of proper sciences on a par with the natural sciences.
This is the historical context in which Popper began his philosophical reflections in the 1920s. Popper’s reflections were influenced by the Vienna Circle, a group of young int.
What is science? Science, pseudoscience, non-scienceDennis Miller
Science plays a fundamental role in modern society. But what exactly is science? In philosophy this question is known as the demarcation problem (Popper, Kuhn, Laudan and others).
Philosophy of science paper_A Melodrama of Politics, Science and ReligionMahesh Jakhotia
ABSTRACT: The aim of my project is to understand how religious, scientific and political
reasons shaped and inspired the theory of ‘Origin of life and universe’ in a progressive way
and to look it from a philosopher’s point of view. I also want to explore the aspect on what makes a radical idea like Darwin’s evolutionary theory which was different from the existing paradigm to be accepted amongst the scientific community.
Internet Encyclopedia of PhilosophySearchPrimary.docxvrickens
Internet Encyclopedia of PhilosophySearch
Primary Menu
Skip to contentABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ×Karl Popper: Philosophy of Science
Karl Popper (1902-1994) was one of the most influential philosophers of science of the 20th century. He made significant contributions to debates concerning general scientific methodology and theory choice, the demarcation of science from non-science, the nature of probability and quantum mechanics, and the methodology of the social sciences. His work is notable for its wide influence both within the philosophy of science, within science itself, and within a broader social context.
Popper’s early work attempts to solve the problem of demarcation and offer a clear criterion that distinguishes scientific theories from metaphysical or mythological claims. Popper’s falsificationist methodology holds that scientific theories are characterized by entailing predictions that future observations might reveal to be false. When theories are falsified by such observations, scientists can respond by revising the theory, or by rejecting the theory in favor of a rival or by maintaining the theory as is and changing an auxiliary hypothesis. In either case, however, this process must aim at the production of new, falsifiable predictions. While Popper recognizes that scientists can and do hold onto theories in the face of failed predictions when there are no predictively superior rivals to turn to. He holds that scientific practice is characterized by its continual effort to test theories against experience and make revisions based on the outcomes of these tests. By contrast, theories that are permanently immunized from falsification by the introduction of untestable ad hoc hypotheses can no longer be classified as scientific. Among other things, Popper argues that his falsificationist proposal allows for a solution of the problem of induction, since inductive reasoning plays no role in his account of theory choice.
Along with his general proposals regarding falsification and scientific methodology, Popper is notable for his work on probability and quantum mechanics and on the methodology of the social sciences. Popper defends a propensity theory of probability, according to which probabilities are interpreted as objective, mind-independent properties of experimental setups. Popper then uses this theory to provide a realist interpretation of quantum mechanics, though its applicability goes beyond this specific case. With respect to the social sciences, Popper argued against the historicist attempt to formulate universal laws covering the whole of human history and instead argued in favor of methodological individualism and situational logic.Table of ContentsBackgroundFalsification and the Criterion of DemarcationPopper on Physics and PsychoanalysisAuxiliary and Ad Hoc HypothesesBasic Sentences and the Role of ConventionInduction, Corroboration, and VerisimilitudeCriticisms of FalsificationismRealism, Quantum Mechanics, and Pro ...
Read| The latest issue of The Challenger is here! We are thrilled to announce that our school paper has qualified for the NATIONAL SCHOOLS PRESS CONFERENCE (NSPC) 2024. Thank you for your unwavering support and trust. Dive into the stories that made us stand out!
How to Make a Field invisible in Odoo 17Celine George
It is possible to hide or invisible some fields in odoo. Commonly using “invisible” attribute in the field definition to invisible the fields. This slide will show how to make a field invisible in odoo 17.
Acetabularia Information For Class 9 .docxvaibhavrinwa19
Acetabularia acetabulum is a single-celled green alga that in its vegetative state is morphologically differentiated into a basal rhizoid and an axially elongated stalk, which bears whorls of branching hairs. The single diploid nucleus resides in the rhizoid.
Welcome to TechSoup New Member Orientation and Q&A (May 2024).pdfTechSoup
In this webinar you will learn how your organization can access TechSoup's wide variety of product discount and donation programs. From hardware to software, we'll give you a tour of the tools available to help your nonprofit with productivity, collaboration, financial management, donor tracking, security, and more.
The French Revolution, which began in 1789, was a period of radical social and political upheaval in France. It marked the decline of absolute monarchies, the rise of secular and democratic republics, and the eventual rise of Napoleon Bonaparte. This revolutionary period is crucial in understanding the transition from feudalism to modernity in Europe.
For more information, visit-www.vavaclasses.com
A Strategic Approach: GenAI in EducationPeter Windle
Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies such as Generative AI, Image Generators and Large Language Models have had a dramatic impact on teaching, learning and assessment over the past 18 months. The most immediate threat AI posed was to Academic Integrity with Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) focusing their efforts on combating the use of GenAI in assessment. Guidelines were developed for staff and students, policies put in place too. Innovative educators have forged paths in the use of Generative AI for teaching, learning and assessments leading to pockets of transformation springing up across HEIs, often with little or no top-down guidance, support or direction.
This Gasta posits a strategic approach to integrating AI into HEIs to prepare staff, students and the curriculum for an evolving world and workplace. We will highlight the advantages of working with these technologies beyond the realm of teaching, learning and assessment by considering prompt engineering skills, industry impact, curriculum changes, and the need for staff upskilling. In contrast, not engaging strategically with Generative AI poses risks, including falling behind peers, missed opportunities and failing to ensure our graduates remain employable. The rapid evolution of AI technologies necessitates a proactive and strategic approach if we are to remain relevant.
Unit 8 - Information and Communication Technology (Paper I).pdfThiyagu K
This slides describes the basic concepts of ICT, basics of Email, Emerging Technology and Digital Initiatives in Education. This presentations aligns with the UGC Paper I syllabus.
Honest Reviews of Tim Han LMA Course Program.pptxtimhan337
Personal development courses are widely available today, with each one promising life-changing outcomes. Tim Han’s Life Mastery Achievers (LMA) Course has drawn a lot of interest. In addition to offering my frank assessment of Success Insider’s LMA Course, this piece examines the course’s effects via a variety of Tim Han LMA course reviews and Success Insider comments.
Instructions for Submissions thorugh G- Classroom.pptxJheel Barad
This presentation provides a briefing on how to upload submissions and documents in Google Classroom. It was prepared as part of an orientation for new Sainik School in-service teacher trainees. As a training officer, my goal is to ensure that you are comfortable and proficient with this essential tool for managing assignments and fostering student engagement.
2. So far: Logical positivism and confirmation Critical rationalism (Popper) and falsification Today: sociology of science
3. In the sixties and seventies of the last century a new generation of philosophers of science emerged. Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996) Paul Feyerabend (1924-1994) ImreLakatos (1922-1974)
11. The pre-paradigmatic period The pre-paradigmatic period is the period before there is a paradigm. There is confusion among ‘scientists’ because they do not share a common paradigm. Scientist think differently about what facts are and what are important problems.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16. Crisis If to much anomalies occur there is a crises Confusion returns, and the old paradigm starts to crumble. Two solutions: The issues are resolved A new paradigm is found, revolution.
17.
18. Revolution New (young) scientist come up with a fresh idea. A paradigmatic shift occurs (Gestalt-switch), a change of worldview.
20. Assignment Think of three examples you consider paradigm shifts These examples could about science, society, or your own life Present it in front of the group
21. progress why does science progress? how does it progress? and what is the nature of its progress?
22. Kuhn doesn’t see a uniform ‘progression’ of science. If there is a uniform progression then only within a paradigm. He questions the rationality of science
24. Geocentrism, the Aristotelian worldview Copernicus and the heliocentric worldview Galileo Galilei and proof As an effect of the Copernican revolution man ceased to be the center of the universe
28. The enemy of science Feyerabend thought Kuhn was killing creativity with normal science There is no such thing as rational scientific progress, not even within a paradigm.
30. Against empirical evidence Challenging observation rather than following it. Galileo not only changed his worldview, but also the way to measure it If the earth moves why do things fall in a straight line?
31. Other observers tested Galileo’s telescope and did not see the same His telescopic observations differ from normal observations
32. Even worse, Galileo’s observations weren’t accurate the sketches he made of the moon do not really resemble the moon at all.
33. Galileo and Copernicus worked contra-inductive. If we followed empirical research, then we would still be stuck with the Aristotelian view.
34. Inquisition and modern science Feyerabend compares modern science with the inquisition The inquisition only tried to defend the prevalent worldview He compares this with creationism
35. ? Galileo succeeded despite, not thanks to rationality and induction. What really happened? Creativity and social factors, public relations so to say What to do: go against the rules, whenever possible.
38. Lakatos considered Kuhn’s idea’s as destructive He wanted to save the rationality of science He proposes: research programs He wanted back to Poppers rationality of science
39. Research programs A research program is like a paradigm. The difference is that their can be more than one at the same time. Every program has a hardcore and a protective belt
40. Adjusting Popper Falsification forbids all ad hoc adjustment Lakatos calls this naïve falsification He suggest that the research programs should get the time to develop Rationality in the long run
42. Practical example: Global warming Is science being driven by social motives? If so: isn’t that unscientific? Is this a bad thing? Is there room for alternatives? Should governments act upon the global warming hypothesis? Give your own opinion on this debate