Nonsense On Stilts Summary

Nonsense On Stilts Summary
Experimental science, the scientific method, and the utilization of common sense can effectively put
an end to the belief and study of various forms of pseudoscience. The biggest question is whether
pseudoscience is a harm to human beings or if it can exist peacefully as a supplement to real
science. M. Pigliucci explores and expresses his opinions on the matter in chapter three of his book,
Nonsense on Stilts. He explores many modern and historical examples of pseudoscience such as
various "cures" for HIV and AIDS, astrology, UFOs and extraterrestrial life, and paranormality.
After finishing the reading, it was easily interpreted that Pigliucci condemns the whole field of
pseudoscience and will forever remain a skeptic, despite any possible ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
In the AIDS example, people are accepting the "cures," which are nothing less than some herbs and
other natural ingredients mixed into a liquid concoction. However, those suffering from the virus
and deadly disease are replacing formal, prescribed medication with these cures that are supported
by little to no scientific proof. Without any form of medication in their systems to attack the virus,
people are dying at increased rates and much earlier in their lives. The greatest portion of the chapter
was spent discrediting astrology in every aspect of the pseudoscience. Astrology does not kill people
directly, but it lures people to believe with its false readings. Every year people spend money (that is
wasted) for a "largely subconscious ego trip" (p. 68). Wasting money on such an unnecessary
expense is destructive to society when that money could be donated to real research or spent on
things that can directly benefit the
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Induction By David Hume
Induction is a form of reasoning in which the premises of an argument support the conclusion,
David Hume (1711 –1776), in his book 'A Treatise of Human Nature' of induction, wrote;
""instances of which we have had no experience resemble those of which we have had experience
(pp. 89) [1]. Adamson (1999) wrote that evidence shows that induction was first scrutinised in the
late 17th and early 18th century, when contemporary views of the world were questioned, near the
end of the scientific revolution [2]. Chalmers (1999), continues, stating that the recognition of the
problem of induction was the starting point for "a sceptical attack of a large domain of accepted
beliefs and opinions that are ordinarily taken to be knowledge", showing the impact philosophical
questioning had on a diverse range of belief systems [3]. David Hume is recognised as one of the
first philosophers to question the validity of induction, and the father of 'The Problem of Induction',
a lasting philosophical question. He began by doubting the ability and validity of a posteriori
knowledge to demonstrate causality. Hume speculated whether induction provides reliable evidence,
and whether it is rational for us to believe inductive knowledge if the basis is not objective, and
whether we can rationally justify beliefs that stem from the unobserved (Hume, pp. 193–4) [4], a
rational being would not trust conclusions drawn from the uncertain. Hume acknowledges that
humans instinctively use induction, through

The Principles Of Empirical Science
One of the key principles in empirical science is distinguishing whether incoming novel theories are
actually scientific or non–scientific. This is referred to as the problem of demarcation. Many
different ideas have been proposed in response to this problem in order to demarcate theories and
amongst some of the most well–known ones are those of Rudolph Carnap and Karl Popper. Carnap
proposes that theories be declared scientific based on whether they can be tested, at least in
principle, and labels this his verification criteria. Popper's method is based on whether a theory has
empirical content which is the set of all possible excluded events proposed by a theory. The question
is, is it possible to agree with both of these criteria? This ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
Let us examine a logical case where Carnap and Popper would disagree. Consider the statement,
'The sun will either rise or not rise tomorrow.' According to Carnap, this is a scientific theory since it
can be tested quite easily. While according to Popper, this theory does not forbid anything from
happening, that is to say that it has no empirical content, so it is deemed unscientific. The sun could
not rise and be replaced with another celestial body and the theory would still be scientific according
to Carnap's criteria. Now, let us consider an example from history. The Miasma theory of disease
was the prevalent theory explaining the spread of disease in much of the 19th century until it was
superseded by the Germ theory of disease [1]. The theory states that disease is spread from a
poisonous miasma emanating from various sources such as rotting corpses and from general
impurities in the atmosphere [1]. The theory had seemed to take hold in lieu of a more satisfying
explanation [1]. One of the major problems with the theory was the lack of supporting experimental
evidence due to a lack of a testing method [1]. This theory violates Carnap's criteria while Popper
would consider the theory scientific as it possess empirical content, it excludes an individual from
acquiring certain diseases in the absence of miasma. Let us consider a case where both Carnap and
Popper would agree. Compare the Miasma theory to

The Nature Of Science And Public Forums
The nature of science is an issue subject to ongoing debate because of its representation within
institutions and public forums. It is common for the general public to believe and assume what is
being dubbed 'scientific knowledge,' as correct and legitimate, without much respect to its
authenticity. In public forums, scientific claims are characterised by reproducibility and
methodology where scientists are represented as those with higher regard. In contrast, evidence
demonstrates that reproducibility in scientific research should be questioned in light of concerns
regarding scientific truth, error and misconduct within scientific practices. Therefore, due to these
concerns, it is important to consider how such standards come to be accepted and what constitutes
something as scientific within scientific institutions and communities. Through the analysis of
current debates involving psychological research, this paper explores the ongoing issue of
reproducibility in science and provides insight into perspectives drawn from academic research
conducted by Bacon, Kuhn, Feyarabend, Merton, Gilbert and Mulkay, and Latour & Woolgar.
To begin, how science is defined varies across disciplines and even within traditions of science. By
examining how the nature of science is constructed through the following extracts collected from
various psychological studies, will demonstrate how science is defined and described from the
perspectives of various philosophers. This first excerpt is a

Six Principles of Scientific Thinking
1. Six principles of scientific thinking
Six scientific thinking principles refers to psychology basics which are utilized throughout all
branches and levels to think scientifically concerning multiple tests, problems, solutions among
others. These scientific thinking principles include;
i) Correlation vs. causation: This refers to the error which emanates from having the assumption that
since one thing is related with another, it must lead to the other. ii) Replicability : This principle
depicts that the findings of a study can consistently be duplicated. iii) Occam's razor: This principle
argues that in a case where two explanations account effectively and equally for a certain
phenomenon then generally the more parsimonious one should be selected. iv) Falsifiability: this
principle states that in order for any claim to be of any meaning it must have the capability of being
disprove.
v) Extraordinary claims necessitate Extraordinary Evidence: This principle states that the more a
certain claim contradicts what is already known the more strong evidence is required for this claim
must be prior to accepting it. vi) Ruling out rival hypothesis: the principle states that when
individuals wants to determine if a psychological claim is true they should ask themselves whether
they have excluded other possible explanations for it.
Importance of principles of scientific thinking
These six principles are important in assessing whether an explanation is a bad or ideal explanation.

The 's Falsification Principle For Demarcating Science...
Adam Leuer
Prof. Livengood
PHIL 471
16 May 2015
Against Popper's Falsificationism
In the following pages I will argue that Karl Popper's falsification principle, when used as the
criterion for demarcating science from non–science, cannot in all cases establish definitively
whether a theory is scientific, and thus at the very least cannot be the sole method of distinguishing
science from non–science. My argument is as follows: For any criterion to serve as the principle of
demarkation, it must describe how, for any given hypothesis, that hypothesis can be evaluated as
scientific or not. Furthermore, that procedure should be consistent with the way established "good"
science is done in practice. Popper's falsification principle is, in at least a few cases, inconsistent
with the way science is done in practice. Therefore, falsification cannot serve as the principle of
demarkation. It has long been the project of philosophers to elucidate just what it is that makes a
method of inquiry science. The question is this: how can we tell if a theory, or set of theories,
constitutes science? What is the principle by which a claim about the nature of things can be said to
be scientific? And just as importantly, how can we know what sort of things are not? Popper
attempted to answer this question of demarkation between science and non–science by proposing a
criterion for distinguishing the former from the latter. Falsifiability, he claimed, is what makes a
hypothesis scientific. To say

Karl Popper 's Philosophy Of Science
When one gets asked, "what is science?" The answer may seem straightforward: biology, physics,
chemistry, etc. However, asking the same question to a philosopher, the answer is completely
different. In other words, Philosophers are not asking for a mere list of sciences but, are seeking to
answer one specific question: What is it that makes something a science. In further detail, the
Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and
implications of science. Therefore, the three main questions are: what qualify as science, how
reliable are scientific theories, and what is the ultimate purpose of science. This discipline overlaps
with metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology, for example, when it explores the relationship
between science and truth. In addition to these general questions about science as a whole,
philosophers of science consider problems that apply to particular sciences (such as biology or
physics). In this essay, I will be introducing and discussing Karl popper's philosophy of science and
its criticisms. To begin, Karl popper's philosophical view of science is often referred to
falsificationism, something to be proven false. This is shown through this example: If Socrates is a
god, then Socrates is immortal. Socrates is not immortal. Therefore, Socrates is not a god. In other
words, Popper's philosophy of science is that scientific knowledge progresses by a series of
conjectures and refutations; these

Science : Conjectures And Refutations By Karl R. Popper
Science: Conjectures and Refutations by Karl R. Popper is a piece of literature that takes scientific
theories into question and asks whether or not they may even be considered truly scientific. In this
paper I will provide reasons and examples as to why this thesis is correct. To begin I will talk about
Poppers main idea or purpose of the paper, I will then go on to discuss his claims and how they
support his paper. Finally I will talk about what it means if Popper is correct and give some reasons
as to why people should believe his thesis. In his paper Popper talks about and attempts to find a
point of demarcation or to create and fix the boundary between that of sciences and pseudo–
sciences. Popper states that many of the theories people consider scientific (i.e. astrology) are in fact
not and in order for a theory to be truly scientific it must follow a certain criteria. This criteria is the
falsifiability, testability, and verifiability of the scientific status of a theory. Each of these claims are
interlocking and rely on one another to work. Using these he is able to show what he thinks a true
scientific claim should do. Along with that these claims are able to show how theories like astrology
can fit into and answer just about any situation or question in life by simply remaining so vague that
it cannot be proven wrong.
However I do not wish to discuss Poppers requirements of what makes a theory scientific, instead I
would like to talk about the point of

The Theory Of Science From Non Science
One of the famous, influential philosophers in the 20th century, Karl Popper, includes striking ideas
of his scientific view. His aim was to understand science. Popper called the problem of
distinguishing science from non–science the "problem of demarcation" (Smith, 58). Popper
proposed a solution to the problem, and it was the "Falsificationism". He described endorsing a view
of scientific validity based on a conception of "falsifiability." Falsifiability is an ability to prove that
hypothesis or a theory is proven false. If the theory was falsified, then it is scientific, and if it is not,
then it is unscientific. Falsifiability was claimed that a hypothesis is scientific if and only if it has the
potential to be refuted by some possible observation, and to be scientific, a hypothesis has to take a
risk, has to "stick its neck out" (Smith, 58). If the theory has no risk, it can't be proven but can be
falsified, and therefore it is not scientific. Popper developed the theory of falsification that some
theories are never going around. He claimed that all testing in science has the form of attempting to
refute theories by means of observation (Smith, 58) The purpose of Popper's use of falsifiability was
to distinguish scientific from non–scientific theories, and Popper included his ideas of science and
pseudo–science. Popper wanted to distinguish science from "pseudo–science". According to
Popper's idea of falsification, the observable evidence can disprove scientific

Is Psychology A Science?
The question that 'psychology is a Science' motivates a substantially critical debate amongst many
professions, having very strong opinions. To come to a vigorous conclusion on this subject we must
take into recognition both sides of the argument, what is science, and weather Psychology meets the
principles of Science. In doing this the following essay will be debating the principles of science, the
scientific unifying approach, poppers opinion on whether psychology is a science through his theory
of falsification, and examples of past falsifiable psychology research. The further argument of
weather psychology has been revolutionised by looking at Khun's opinion, and Millers paper on the
revolution of cognitive science.
Science its self is scientific methods being practiced to widen and construct a system of knowledge
about our natural world, where Pseudoscience is all else that does not meet the principles of
scientific method, but claims it is science. In order to conclude if psychology is a science it must be
assessed what principles must be attained to be contemplated as science. Many would argue that
Psychology is not a Science, for many reasons. The first being that all natural sciences have a
unified approach, with Biology's being the theory of Common Decent, Physics following the unified
field theory and Chemistry following the theory of molecular bonding. Psychology lacks a unified
approach, and instead has six different perspectives (Gilder, October 12, 2015). Does

Where Do Hypotheses Come From?
Week #1: BIO 100
Power Point #1 Questions – 25 points total
1. What famous author or scientists made the following three quotes? (3 points)
a) The best scientists are continually trying to prove themselves wrong" – Richard Feynman
b) The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the most discoveries, is not
"Eureka! I found it!" but "That's funny......" – Isaac Asimov
c) "A fact is a simple statement that everyone believes. It is innocent, unless found guilty. A
hypothesis is a novel suggestion that no one wants to believe. It is guilty, until found effective. " –
Edward Teller
2. Pick one of the three quotes above and in a short paragraph, defend why you agree or disagree
with the statement. (3 points)
Richard Feynman ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
What is the difference between methods scientists use to "know" about the world and other methods
of "knowing" ? (2 points) scientists are more specific to what they are looking for by using
controlled experiments, carefully scrutinizing nature and correlating different parameters.
4. Where do hypotheses come from? (Hint: see slide #9!) (1 point) generalization of different
concepts that are being studied in order to give one specific idea.
5. What type of reasoning uses generalizations to form a hypothesis? (Inductive or deductive?) (1
point) Inductive reasoning
6. What type of reasoning uses "if .....then...." statements to form a prediction? (Inductive or
deductive?) (1 point) deductive reasoning 7. What is the difference between a hypothesis and a
theory? (1 point) a hypothesis is centered on a specific idea while a theory is made up of different
hypothesis
8. What is the difference between dependent and independent variables? (1 point) the independent
variable can be manipulated by the scientist (normally graphed on the x–axis) while the Dependent
variables what the researcher is measuring (normally graphed on the y–axis)
9. What is the purpose of a control in an experiment? (1 point) to make sure that the specimen being
studied is not exposed to the experimental

Analysis Of Imre Lakatos 's Concept Of Research Programme...
Imre Lakatos was a 20th century philosopher of mathematics and science, who introduced the
concepts of research programme and the protective belt. It is evident that Lakatos' ideas stem from
two other philosophers of science discussed in class. The first being Karl Popper, and his concept of
falsificationism. Popper suggested theories cannot be proven, but, rather, falsified. After putting a
theory under experimentation, if you observe results that conflict with the claim or hypothesis, then
the theory as a whole gets discarded. The other philosopher is Thomas Kuhn, who is known for his
idea of paradigm shifts. He said that after long spans of normal science and experimentation in a
given period of time, there will then be a sudden change in a way of thinking, which leads to a
paradigm shift, and progress in science.
Lakatos' idea lies in the middle. He said that a theory progresses over time, and every succession a
scientist makes in the field of a specific theory, gets added to its hardcore. Lakatos calls this the
research programme; in other words, it is a chain of experimentation and progress in a specific
scientific realm. All of the scientists working in the same research programme form a protective belt
around the core. The purpose of this protective belt is to allow for experimentation and research to
be done, without destroying the hardcore when a hypothesis is falsified, unlike falsificationism.
When I think of the hard core and protective belt, I see the hardcore

Induction As A General Law Or Principle From The...
The Oxford English Dictionary refers to induction as, the process of inferring a general law or
principle from the observation of particular instances (Induction). Despite their reasoning's,
philosophers such as Hume and Popper have publicly voiced their disagreement and concerns with
induction. Hume's concern with casual connection and the uncertainty of something when individual
has not personally experienced that given experience has lead me to contemplate the arguments
brought forward by both Hume and Popper and in the end side with the both of them and disagree
with induction.
What is Induction? Induction is the generally held belief that scientific knowledge derives its
justification by being based on generalization from ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Deduction on the other hand, works from the more general knowledge to the specific. In deductive
reasoning you start out with a general statement, or hypothesis, and examine the possibilities to
reach a specific, logical conclusion. The scientific method is an example of deductive reasoning. A
specific example of deductive reasoning would be saying that: all oranges are fruit and all fruit
grows on trees, therefore, all oranges grow on trees. It is assumed that the premises "All oranges are
fruit" and "All fruit grows on trees" are true. Therefore, the conclusion is logical and true. Deductive
inference conclusions are certain provided the premises are also true. If the generalization is wrong,
the conclusion may be logical, but it may also be untrue. Inductive reasoning, though, faces two
problems. The first problem of induction is that regardless of how many impartial observations are
recorded, a prediction of a future event will never be completely certain. For example, we can never
be completely certain that the sun will rise every morning, even though you know that the sun has
risen everyday in the past there can be no certainty that it will rise tomorrow – to be certain, it must
be known that the law of nature is absolute. Regardless of this, we bring inductive reasoning into
our everyday lives and, it seems, if we

Academic Ethical Dilemma: Learning Enhancement Through...
Academic Ethical Dilemma: Learning Enhancement Through Chemistry
There is a trend occurring in the academic world that is gaining in popularity and has many in the
academic world worried. This trend is the increase use of drugs to enhance the brain's ability to not
only work harder, longer and faster but also to retain that knowledge. "Doping" is no longer the
exclusive realm of sports professionals" (Block,2003). Not only does this create opportunities for
today's students to excel but it also creates some major ethical issues to be addressed.
There are two popular drugs that are reported to be at the forefront of this trend: Ritalin, which is
used to control hyperactivity in children and Modafinil, which is used to treat ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
Then of course we have the legal issues. Many of the drugs are being bought and not prescribed.
Selling prescription drugs is a crime and could have some serious ramifications for both the buyer
and the seller.
Continued research is needed in the use of these types of drugs in the normal person. It cannot be
left up to the pharmaceutical companies to make this decision, as the financial windfall that will
occur when these drugs are made available will be considerable. The FDA must step in and help
determine whether the benefits outweigh the risks associated with this type of drug intervention for
brain boosting/enhancement.
There also needs to continue to be ethical discussions and challenges concerning the right and
wrong of the use and/or abuse of this method of achieving academic success. It is suggested that if
this trend continues without any decisions on if it is to be allowed, that schools might have to resort
to having the students "dope tested" prior to handing in their exam papers to ensure that the results
were due to hard work and not drugs (Laurance, 2003). Although there appears to be an increasing
trend in the use of drugs for this purpose it also appears that this is becoming so widespread that we
are turning a blind–eye to the potential negative implications that might result.
Where or when will this dilemma end? Chances are, unless immediate action is taken, the use of
these drugs

Aristotle 's Theory Of Science And Philosophers Essay
Explain and analyse Popper's falsificationism Science and philosophers such as Karl Popper work
together to uncover scientific truths about the world, and are thus necessary for the advancement of
our scientific knowledge. While scientists design and undertake experiments with the aim of
obtaining results to verify or disprove a hypothesis, it is philosophy that often determines which
factors determine the validity of these found results (Shuttleworth, 2008). The validity is measured
through the demarcation problem, or the division of science from pseudoscience. This essay will
explain Karl Poppers act of falsification, proposed to determine which theories can be considered
scientific, and which should be considered pseudoscientific. It will then analyse the strengths and
weaknesses of this act with specific reference to the problem of induction and Bayeanism, and
Poppers responses to the multiplicity of criticisms falsification has recieved. Poppers inspiration for
the falsification theory began during the time Albert Einstein formulated his theory of relativity, as
he was highly fascinated by this progress of science (Kim, 2007). During this time, Einstein's theory
did not yet have any experimental evidence. It wouldn't be until the total solar eclipse of 1919 his
theory would be put to the test (Kim, 2007). Popper knew if the outcome of the experiment
confirmed the theory, it would be strengthened, and if it conflicted with the theory, it would be
abandoned (Kim,

Theories And Theories Of The Calms Made By Alan Chalmers
The following essay aims to discuss the calms made by Alan Chalmers, discussing his inductive
views of the scientific method stating that "Scientific knowledge is proven knowledge..." and that
"...Scientific knowledge is reliable knowledge because it is objectively proven knowledge." I will
also be discussing Karl Popper's opposing views on the scientific method, siding with his
falsification method. I think that even though both sides are rational, Alan Chalmers clams are more
practical and better for humans to continue to investigate new theories and laws of the universe.
Therefore, I oppose Popper's stance on the scientific method due to it discrediting non data driven
fields sciences, labelling them as simply not science due to their inability to be disproven. To begin,
the two opposing perspectives of the scientific method; inductivism and falsificationism, will be
briefly explained with arguments for and against laid out.
To start with I will present the argument in favour of the inductivist. Inductivism is based upon a
single basis; scientific observation, with all resulting laws and theories being derived from said
basis. The allure of inductivist accounts is that it provides a clear and practical understanding of the
universe from what data has been collected at the present time. The reason why humans have used
induction for the majority of history is that it works in situations when our knowledge and
information is limited. It allows us to generalise laws of nature and

Difference Between Science And Religion
Science and religion are the two opposing answers to the questions "how" and "why"? This
opposition would lead us to believe the two subjects are in conflict. Philosophers, theologians, and
scientists have been exploring these ideas for centuries and have offered many different opinions on
the topic. The scientist Stephen Jay Gould argues that science and religion are not in conflict due to
the principle of Non–overlapping magisteria. The philosopher of science, Karl Popper, worked to
differentiate between science and pseudoscience. The ideas of these two men bring up the question
of "are science and religion separate entities or is religion a pseudoscience?" After studying the
principles and ideas proposed, it is justifiable to say that science and religion are not in conflict
because they are two completely different realms which do not overlap.
A very elementary definition of science is the study of the composition and behaviors of the natural
world through experiments and observations. Karl Popper is regarded as one of the most significant
philosophers of science. In a report he gave on the philosophy of science, Popper discussed when a
theory should be scientific or pseudoscience. In his conclusion of the paper Popper stated that
scientific status of a theory is determined by its refutability, testability, or falsifiability. The classic
example of pseudoscience is astrology which is the belief that the position and movements of stars
or planets influence the natural

Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn 2
Popper and Kuhn: Two Views of Science In this essay I attempt to answer the following two
questions: What is Karl Popper's view of science? Do I feel that Thomas Kuhn makes important
points against it? The two articles that I make reference to are "Science: Conjectures and
Refutations" by Karl Popper and "Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research?" by Thomas
Kuhn. Both articles appear in the textbook to this class. In the article, "Science: Conjectures and
Refutations", Karl Popper attempts to describe the criteria that a theory must meet for it to be
considered scientific. He calls this puzzle the problem of demarcation. Popper summarizes his
arguments by saying, "the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Kuhn refutes this point by claiming that Popper's assertion that astrologers escape falsification by
"explaining away" any possible refutations is impossible to support. Kuhn uses the example of
"reputable records" that indicate many instances where astrology categorically failed. Astrology is a
very complex science (or non–science, depending on your opinion). Measuring the planets and the
stars is hard, and in the days when astrology was more popular, the tools for measuring were crude.
In addition, few people knew exactly when they were born, a crucial detail needed to perform
accurate astrology. Kuhn agrees with Popper in stating that astrology is not a science, but they differ
in their reasons. Kuhn main problem with astrology is that the failures of astrology do not "give rise
to research puzzles." He thinks that when a scientific theory fails to explain a phenomenon, there is
a new puzzle for scientists to study, learn, and grow from. In astrology, nothing is learned from
mistakes. There is no effort to change the theory to explain why it failed or adopt a new theory.
Popper emphasizes the importance of testing when it comes to new theories replacing old ones.
Kuhn takes particular offense to this statement. He argues that if one looks at how science is actually
done, not how Popper thinks it should be done, it will be clear that many new theories were adopted
before they had been tested. Kuhn uses the example of Copernicus' theory being adopted over

Is Science And Pseudoscience?
In this essay I will argue that science and pseudoscience cannot be clearly demarcated: rather that
there's great difficulty and complication on the fringes when asserting strict criteria that
distinguishes the two. I will give a brief overview and draw on the arguments made by philosophers
of science throughout history and explain why perhaps their criteria are problematic. I will look in
depth into 'creation science' and why we strongly consider this as pseudoscientific and analyse the
more ambiguous peripheries of science such as Freudian psychoanalysis or even economics. Laudan
(1983) claimed that the problem of demarcation can be traced back to ancient Greece and Aristotle.
Aristotle asserted that from general laws one can deduce scientific theories that are consequently
truthful statements. Pseudoscientific theories according to Aristotle are not deductively formulated
and therefore cannot be considered scientific. However this method of demarcation is flawed:
pseudosciences such as astrology can be vacuously true and most are reluctant to say astrology is
scientific. We can already see from this early stage that the distinctions between science and
pseudoscience are murky and the formulation of demarcation can be challenging. In the 17th
century Francis Bacon introduced induction as the new method for producing scientific theories.
However inductive reasoning is riddled with problems that make it unsatisfactory for demarcating
science. Hume's problem of induction

Plasticity In Psychology
Science is characterised by distinctive methods of enquiry and construction of theories (2).
Philosophy of science is tasked with analysing the processes employed by scientists and uncovering
the assumptions implicit in scientific practice (2, 12). According to Karl Popper a scientific theory
ought to be falsifiable; otherwise it is merely pseudo–science (13). Scientists arrive at a set of beliefs
by a process of inference (which is more often than not influenced by researcher bias). That is,
deductive and inductive patterns of reasoning are used to provide a defensible explanation of the
process generating the observed pattern of interest (18–23). Thomas Kuhn suggested that scientific
concepts are largely influenced by the paradigms (set of ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Paradigms likely to influence my inferences, particularly with respect to artiodactyls, include:
thermoregulatory behaviour, endothermy, homeothermy, heterothermy, adaptive heterothermy and
heterothermy induced by water and/or energy stress. Competing paradigms of heterothermy
(adaptive vs. stress induced) are particularly pertinent and continue to be debated (testing the
paradigm and Kuhn's period of 'revolutionary science' (82)). No neutral evidence exists to compare
these paradigms (cf. positivism, (80)), however they are not entirely incommensurable (Kuhn's
incommensurability, (85–87)). In addition, although each paradigm possesses its own supporting
evidence (albeit it being paradigm–relative (84, 88)); limited data and evidence exists to judge,
compare and choose between the two paradigms (Kuhn's theory–ladenness of data (88)). In
anticipation of my findings, I am aware that I am more aligned to the paradigm of water and/or
energy induced heterothermy and will remain conscious of this throughout my method of enquiry,
evidence analyses and scientific

Disagreement: The Scientific Method
When two people encounter a disagreement, the typical comeback statement is, "If it is true then
prove it". In the midst of an argument one might respond with, "Well, I cannot prove it but I do
know it is true". This is where the responder is incorrect, though. Science has created a system in
which we can prove or disprove virtually any statement. This system is better known as the
scientific method. Through research and analysis, puzzling questions can no longer be a mystery all
due to the scientific method. Before one can begin their research, they have to decide what it is they
are going to be getting a deeper understanding on. This all starts with a theory. A theory is an
observation of someone or something that the researcher wishes to further expand their knowledge
upon. Once it has been established what will be studied, a well thought out hypothesis must be
formulated. A hypothesis is an if–then statement, where if represents the particular behavior being
observed and the then is acting as the result of the behavior being observed. Now, the experimenter
must write up what is called an operational definition. This is a way in which future researchers can
accurately replicate (which means to perform the same experiment and get the same result) the
experiment. Once all of these steps have been carefully ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The satisfaction of bettering the scientific community comes through careful observation and
documentation. The scientific method might have multiple steps that can take time to assess but in
the end the rewards are great. Discovering something that can better society as a whole makes one
forget about all the failed attempts and long nights trying to solve the task at hand. The scientific
method is a vital component of society and will help many people for many years to come. So,
whenever someone says that a point cannot be prove it can be prove that their statement is faulty
through the scientific

Essay on Karl Popper's Falsifiability
Karl Popper's Falsifiability
Sir Karl Popper's lecture was very thought provoking concerning "where to draw the line." Unlike
most people, the validity of the theory was not his concern as much as how that validity is
determined. This is an issue that really does not get the attention that it deserves. Popper's claims
concerning, "When should a theory be ranked as scientific?" and "Is there a criterion for the
scientific character or status of a theory?" seems to be put together in the following summary.
At first Popper seems to just be criticizing the integrity of some sciences and/or scientists who
nebulously back their vague and general theories with references to observations that may be
inconclusive or scanty which they ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The first half of Popper's lecture seems to coincide with Thomas Kuhn's historical account of
science. Kuhn speaks of the old astronomical theories held and how they resemble many types of
theories today. They "were believed for the same reasons: they provided plausible answers to the
questions that seemed important" (Kuhn p.3). Kuhn, however, would agree with Popper that theories
must go beyond the content of observation; that it was psychological factors that led the early
scientists to group up observations into a systematic formula.
Basically, with every hypothesis, conjecture, observation, etc. I have read about in Kuhn goes to
every extreme to avoid any type of test that might refute their claims. The limited observations that
they did make could always be interpreted into the theory. What was worse was that those
observations that did not fit into the theory were viewed as only "apparent" observations (Kuhn
p.39).
Maybe this is another factor involved as to why Copernicus was revolutionary. He did not follow
this precedent. Copernicus was not the only one. Many had also refuted Aristotle's views concerning
laws of motion (Kuhn p.83). When observable falsifying evidence is present Kuhn agrees that the
"conceptual scheme must then be abandoned and replaced." However, a good distinction is made
here. Conceptual scheme is a much better rendering than theory. Much like what I would call a
world view–the way we

The Logic Of Scientific Discovery
As a professor of Logic and the Scientific Method at the University of London, Karl Popper
translated his own original version of The Logic of Scientific Discovery, which was originally called
Logik der Forschung, to English (Stuermann). One statement that he makes, even before the actual
text begins, is how hard answering questions and ideas in philosophy are is compared to other fields,
such as the physical sciences. Compared to a physicist, for example, that is trying to prove a point
by solving an equation,, Popper believes that "a philosopher finds himself in a different position.
They do not face an organized structure, but rather something resembling a heap of ruins (though
perhaps with treasure buried underneath). They cannot appeal to the fact that there is a generally
accepted problem–situation; for that there is no such thing is perhaps the one fact, which is generally
accepted" (Popper). In his book, Popper takesfocuses on the daunting task of answering, or refutes,
the main themes that are fundamental to the logic of science and philosophy., These ideaswhich
include his opinions of why empirical sciences are fundamental, the problem with induction,
falsification, and the feeling or experience as a method.
Popper dives right into the first point that he believes is fundamental to the area of science, which he
has called 'empirical science' (Popper). He describes it as creating a hypothesis and testing it against
his experience to either confirm the hypothesis or

Difference Between Popper And Empiricism
The truth of science: Empiricists versus Popper versus Kuhn For as far as we know through writings
and drawings people have always been interested in doing some kind of science. The word science
comes from the Latin word "scientia", which means "knowledge". The Egyptians, Greek, Chinese
and Romans already had ideas about science. Some of these scientific ideas were nicely documented
and preserved. Up until the 20th century people used induction1 as means of proof without
questioning the principles of induction. This paper is going to explain why according to Popper
induction was not the way to do "good science". And how Popper thought science 1Induction is a
specific form of reasoning in which the premises of an argument support a conclusion, but do not
ensure it.[7] worked. Then compare this with the way Kuhn argued science worked. 2 Definitions
First of all, it's really important that we're all on the same page. This paper is based on the following
assumptions. Knowledge, intelligence and observation exist in some way or form that depends on
the context. Something or someone can be observed and when it says "everything before Popper" it
is referring to only the Empiricists unless ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
He thought that induction was not a valid proof technique. Scientists should be critical and skeptical.
Trying to reach the truth was "one of the strongest motives for scientific discovery"[1]. But 'the
truth' does not exist according to Popper. We only get closer to it. This is why he introduced the
concept of falsification. Which is, instead of trying to prove something is true, you try to prove it's
false. If you find a counter example, the hypothesis is rejected. If you can't falsify2 it, your
hypothesis become a rule until someone can falsify it. So the more you falsify, the closer we get to
the truth (according to

The Pros And Cons Of Human Reasoning
Human reasoning can be broken down into two parts, deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning,
in this essay I will be focusing on the induction side of human reasoning and whether it is rational or
not to use in science. The basic idea of induction is that you learn from past experiences and apply
the information learned from that to your future decision making and knowledge. Swinburne defines
an inductive argument is an argument or inference comes from one or more premises to draw a
conclusion (Swinburne, 1974).An example of this is, as a child you touch a flame and learn that it
burns you ,so from this induce that all flames that you will encounter again will also burn you.
Induction is something we as humans use moment to moment in our everyday life. The problem of
induction is something that has been Widely debated over many years.
The idea that induction is unreasonable or irrational was first put forward by David Hume in the
seventeenth century. He was a sceptic about the idea of induction and noticed a problem with
inductive reasoning. This is that the premise cannot guarantee the conclusion. Hume wrote that
everything that we learn from experience we learnt through similarities found in natural object and
we induce effects similar to those found into our everyday life experiences. (Hume, 1902) "when a
new object endowed with similar sensible qualities, is produced, we expect similar powers and
forces, and look for a like effect" (Hume, 1902). Hume is not

Synthesis Essay On Alzheimer's
Alzheimer's sheds light into the final frontier that offers much more than answering the question of
the origin of disease, but the origin of mankind as a species. The difference and lack of difference in
man though scientifically is drastically unequal, but hold identical impact on the focus and
progression of humanity. The argument of what race is reaches its apex as race is molded into a
scientific hypothesis that comes to heads with genetic universality that upon isolation breeds
genomics. Do our genetics define our humanity, or do our genomics implicate race to be the source
of what causes diseases like Alzheimer's. The results, though polarized, garner the same conclusion
when one takes a step back, that disease is caused by systematic ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Bias can occur in the planning, data collection, analysis, and publication phases of research.
Understanding research bias allows readers to critically and independently review the scientific
literature and avoid treatments which are suboptimal or potentially harmful. A thorough
understanding of bias and how it affects study results is essential for the practice of evidence–based
medicine. Contextually, the bias in the research practices to understand Alzheimer's and moreover
the deviating conclusions garnered due to the variances in research practices allude to a greater issue
present. Specifically, the idea of race as a scientific category is a blatantly erroneous conclusion that
has arisen due to the biased practices in research that continues to be perpetuated in not just the
research for Alzheimer's but in the scientific field. For the idea of genetics and genomics to
perpetuate the resurfacing of race is a testament of how the subjectivity of research augments
subjective conclusions that correlate with the erroneous conduction of research in

Intelligent Clinician's Guide To The Dsm-5 Essay
For as long as there has been a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), it has
been treated as if it contained scientific truths. Yet, is that what the DSM really is? Or, is really only
a rough draft of diagnoses based on the supposed consensus of experts? This seems to be the
question that drives the explanation and critique forwarded by Dr. Joel Paris in The Intelligent
Clinician's Guide to the DSM–5®. A good place to start is to envision a mental disorder as similar to
that of a medical diagnosis; viz., that both require scientific classification. However, the differences
arise in that mental disorders lack the more fundamental understanding of disease processes. Mental
disorders are based more on signs and symptom ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
However, the biggest problem in making the DSM–5®, seem to lie not so much in the process, but
the fact that it was driven more by ideology than the other previous editions. The ideology that
seems implicit is the principle that "mental disorders are neurobiological and dimensional and lack a
cut–off from normality (Kupfer & Regier, 2011) (Paris p. 26).In using dimensionality accompanied
with a spectrum of normality, psychiatric disorders can be seen to lack no exact boundary with
normality. As seen in previous editions of DSMs, various diagnoses have failed to separate mental
disorders from common experiences of life. If this is the case, there is always the chance that
diagnoses can be wrong, and wrong diagnoses do have consequences. Staying on the subject of
separating mental illness from life's "ups and downs," what is the definition of normal human
unhappiness? Has this ever been clearly defined, measured, or interpreted? And, how does a
diagnoses involving unhappiness make that condition disabling? With these two questions, it is
probable that many problems that would receive a diagnosis under the DSM–5® are painful but not
disabling. As Paris rightly states, "The overdiagnosis of major depression, based on its overly broad
definition, is one of the most serious problems in contemporary psychiatry" (p. 82). Paris then
concentrates on the multitude of disorders included in the new DSM V®. From Schizophrenia
spectrum and other psychoses, through

SOLVING THE DEMARCATION PROBLEM USING THREE
THEORIES Essay
In this paper, I will explain three theories on how to solve the demarcation problem, or the problem
of distinguishing between science and non–science, and how all three of them need to be combined
in order to truly solve this problem. First, I will explain each of the three different theories proposed
by A.J. Ayer, Karl Popper, and Paul Thagard, these philosopher's arguments for each of these
theories, and an example of using each theory. Then, I will explain why all three of these theories
need to be combined by showing examples of how each individual theory incorrectly categorizes
something as scientific. Next, I will show how these three theories together can correctly distinguish
science from non–science. Finally, I will explain ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
If we would see them either with our eyes or through a camera, we would be using empirical
evidence to prove this statement. Although, we do not have that technology currently to prove this
statement, it is still verifiable "in principle."ii Karl Popper in "Science: Conjectures and Refutations"
creates the theory of falsifiability to try to distinguish between science, pseudoscience, and
metaphysics. His theory of falsifiability states that there must be "a possibility of refuting the
theory"iii in order for a theory to be falsifiable. Another way of stating this is that an experiment
must be designed (but not necessarily implemented) so that the theory is tested as whether it is true
or not. Popper argues that every time a scientific theory is tested, it is an attempt to be proven false.
He also argues that a "'good' scientific theory"iv forbids many things from happening, which is an
indicator of falsifiability. An example that follows Popper's principle of falsifiability is the
statement, "All cats have white fur." This statement can easily be tested and shown to be false. A
scientist can take a group of random cats and look at their fur. If even one of the cats' fur is not
white, then the statement is false. Thus, the statement has the possibility of being proven false,
which results in the statement having falsifiability. Paul Thagard in "Why Astrology is a
Pseudoscience" creates a

Popper and Kuhn: Two Views of Science Essay
Popper and Kuhn: Two Views of Science
In this essay I attempt to answer the following two questions: What is Karl Popper's view of
science? Do I feel that Thomas Kuhn makes important points against it? The two articles that I make
reference to are "Science: Conjectures and Refutations" by Karl Popper and "Logic of Discovery or
Psychology of Research?" by Thomas Kuhn.
In the article, "Science: Conjectures and Refutations", Karl Popper attempts to describe the criteria
that a theory must meet for it to be considered scientific. He calls this puzzle the problem of
demarcation. Popper summarizes his arguments by saying, "the criterion of the scientific status of a
theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability." Kuhn ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Popper thinks that it is their weakness. He contrasts Marxism with Einstein's Gravitational Theory,
noting the main difference is that Einstein's theory is a risky prediction. He says, "The theory is
incompatible with certain possible results of observation..." Popper says that confirmations or
verifications are easy to come up with for any theory; "Confirmations should only count if they are
the result of risky predictions."
According to Popper, when a theory is proven to be false, it should not be used. He describes the
common practice of giving theories a "conventionalist twist" as re–interpreting a theory after it has
been disproven so that the theory can survive the apparent challenge. Popper says that Marxism is
not science because when the theory was refuted, it was altered to explain the apparent refutations
within the frames of the Marxist theory. Kuhn argues against this point. He says that introducing "ad
hoc" assumptions to save a theory is done all the time in science, and it helps make the theories
accurate. Rarely is a theory perfect the first time it is put down on paper. Kuhn thinks that the
refinement of theories is an important part of theory development.
Popper says that Astrology is not science because astrologers were too impressed with confirming
evidence. Also astrology is not falsifiable. Astrologers make vague predictions and can explain any
apparent

Friedman Vs Popper
In this essay the author shall seeks an answer to a complex question whether and on what is the
comparative and relative Milton Friedman's methodology to Karl Raimund Popper's philosophy of
science focusing only on the arguments that really comparable. The question, whether positive
economics is convergent with Popper's falsification's philosophy of science has been preoccupying
the experts for some time.
In the first part, the author presents methodology definition and its place at theory of economics. In
the second part, the author compares the assumptions of Milton Friedman's methodology of positive
economics with the assumptions of Popper's philosophy of science, indicating both similarities and
differences. Finally, the discussions of Milton Friedman's phenomena and his rules today ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Furthermore "positive science" for Friedman indicates exactly Popper's meaning of "objective
knowledge". At Popper's methodology are only two solutions: the best obtainable is truth or it gets
falsified. Friedman makes verification as a degree of reasonable confidence and explains as an
ultimately increasing a subjective state of uncertainty. In fact it is a Popper's "falsifiability".
Friedman and Popper confirm a real testing problem in economics. According Friedman a "theory
does not have prima facie to be tested on a new facts for it can be tested on old ones which have not
yet been notice and which statistical analysis could reveal to us". Whereas according Popper a
theory might see as merely ad hoc. The main testing problem in economics has to do the rational
impossibility of unravel to the observable facts so that one could plainly see what concern solely to
economics and what other social or psychological

How Does David Hume Pose The Problem Of Induction?
In the seventeenth century the philosopher David Hume posed the problem of induction. This
problem addresses the difference between science and observations. This essay will discuss how
several hundred years later Popper came in with a solution to Hume's problem. However, many
other philosophers will come a long and critique Popper's solution. The biggest critique Popper's
solution does not follow the scientific method. With out proper scientific backing Popper's theory is
invalid. David Hume was a philosopher in the seventeenth century. Hume took a skeptical approach
to philosophy in many topics. It was Hume who posed the problem of indiction. Induction is "any
form of reasoning in which the conclusion, though supported by the premises, does not follow from
them necessarily." ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
It is unrealistic to assume that because something has always been a certain way that it will always
be a certain way. For instance women could not vote for hundreds of years, but that did not stop
women from eventually gaining the right to vote. Further more Kuhn makes the point that just
because one time an event does not occur does not mean that the theory could not be proven correct.
For these reasons I think that Popper's theory jumps to conclusions instead of allowing the scientific
method to work. I also would say that Hume was correct in saying that people can not make vernal
statements based only off of their experiences. That is how stereotyping becomes an issue. Everyday
in the news lately there are stories about the muslim race and how people stereo type all muslims
because there are some radical groups. However, if a person looks further into the stories there are
so many other stories where muslims empower people and are generous. Those stories do not make
headlines. Hume recognized how theories like this could come about and he was correct to bring up
the problem of

Science : Conjectures And Refutations And The Problem Of...
The Problem of Falsification In the two articles "Science: Conjectures and Refutations" and "The
Problem of Induction," the philosopher Karl Popper expresses discontent with the way that he sees
science operating. In the first writing, Popper criticizes contemporary thinkers for supporting their
theories with positive evidence. The second article offers a broader critique of the emphasis on
confirmation in science. Both present a position that falsifiability, or the potential to be refuted, is
the basis of the demarcation between science and non–science. However, Popper's claim is too
narrow and imprecise, as it places too much importance on decisions made by testers, and also
restricts the discovering and predicting powers of science. In both articles, Popper presents an
argument based around the same set of premises. Primarily, throughout the argument, there is an
overarching implicit premise that science should be an endeavor based firmly on a logical
foundation, as evidenced by Popper's persistent attempts to remove any vestige of bad logic from
science. Another key premise of the argument is that attempting to derive general laws of nature
from individual observations requires that there be a "purely logical principle of induction." Popper
points out this does not exist because attempts to base induction on logical grounds either runs into
an infinite series of inductive justifications, or ends up appealing to a doctrine of apriorism. A
further premise of the argument

Quine Writes 's Two Dogmas Of Empiricism
Elisabeth Daigle Massey Contemporary Philosophy 8 December 2015 Contemp. PHL Paper Draft
Quine writes "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" critiquing two parts of empiricism separate from the
rest of what empiricism entails. These two dogmas are: a) there is a principled distinction between
analytic and synthetic propositions, and b) reductionism is true. Quine also explains undetermination
and its uses. His application is that anyone can believe anything if they are willing to let go of some
background knowledge which could refute it. Commonly said as, believe x, come what may. Laudan
has set out to demystify underdetermination because Quine's use has been oversimplified and
misused by many. It will be helpful to first define dogmas, reductionism ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
One of the dogmas that Quine addresses is "reductionism." Reductionism refers to the empiricist
claim that the meaning of a proposition is its verification conditions. The belief that each statement
is equivalent to some logical construct upon terms which refer to immediate experience,
observations. Underdetermination is the thesis explaining that for any scientifically based theory
there will always be at least one rival theory that is also supported by the evidence given, and that
that theory can also be logically maintained in the face of any new evidence. This theory allows for
conflicting things to coexist, they might be consistent by they are not necessarily rational. The
Quine–Duhem thesis involves the idea that a "physicist can never subject an isolated hypothesis to
experimental tests, but only a whole group of hypotheses." This is to say that when an experiment is
conducted and fails, the conductor cannot say I will test "x" and prove that "it was x that was in
disagreement" because all he knows is that at least one variable, one hypotheses, in the group is
unacceptable and therefore must be changed. The experiment does not flag the culprit, the reason the
whole failed. Instead the entire hypothesis is put into question and can, in it's entirety be tried again.
This would seem to be analogous, though on its face it is not clearly analogous, to all theories and
hypotheses, not just

Why Is Science Special?
According to Popparian falsification, why is science special? Science plays an important role in
society today as it helps us understand the ever–changing world around us through the power of
observation. Oxford dictionary defines science as "The intellectual and practical activity
encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world
through observation and experiment". This ambiguous definition begs the question that this essay
will answer through use of falsification; what makes science special from every other body of
knowledge? Distinguishing between science and non–science is known as the 'demarcation problem'
(Resnick, 2000). Falsification was first proposed by Karl Popper to resolve this problem. He
believed that someone can "only admit a system as empirical or scientific" if it is logically possible
to both verify and falsify the system (Popper, 1959). Inductive reasoning tends to be used to provide
evidence for a proposed theory but not absolute proof of it, hence the hypothesis outcome is
probable but not irrefutable (Copi, Cohen, & Flage, 2007). Consider the statement "all swans are
white" (Keuth, 2005). Just because all the swans you have observed are doesn't make it true as you
haven't observed all swans; this is known as a dogmatic statement. Through falsification the
outcome is a certainty not a probability. Popper's falsification effectively proving a theory to be
scientific is demonstrated through Newton's

Karl Popper's Theory Of Falsification Theory
Despite Karl Popper's extensive and credible work in the field of scientific philosophy, I think his
falsification theory should be thought of solely as a philosophical theory and nothing more because
it is most useful as a guideline that is not taken at face value and applied to every scientific theory.
In philosophy of science the goal is to prove a certain hypothesis or induce one from observational
data. However Popper had a different view on the methodology of proving theories (in this case
scientific) and believed that general statements that are used to form specific conclusions cannot be
accepted, as they need an inference to begin with thus impermissible by deductive reasoning. An
example of this is saying that "All swans are white", it is much easier to prove that not all swans are
white by finding a single case where our hypothesis fails rather than validating each case for which
our hypothesis holds. Delving deeper into falsification it is important to note that falsifiability
doesn't mean that there are arguments opposing a theory but rather it is possible to have a scenario,
which would invalidate it or disprove it. Building on his theory Popper wanted to emphasize the
idea that no theory is completely correct, unless it is shown to be falsifiable and supported with
evidence. A famous example of an unfalsifiable scenario with supporting evidence is as follows,
"The earth is younger than many scientists state, and in fact was created to appear as though it was

Comparison Of Kuhn And Popper 's Understanding Of Science
In this section we will compare and contrast Kuhn's understanding of science with Popper's
understanding of science. These two methods are narrower when it comes to levels of scrutiny. They
are also more open and willing to embrace change because they seek to change the status quo which
is traditional science. Both scientists agree that the traditional method of science is too broad and
ignores many different variables that could change the outcome of the results. They also concur on
the idea that a subjective approach to science and reason is more suitable to reach a correct answer
rather than shooting wildly in all directions and accepting the bullet that is closest to our target.
Kuhn and Popper looked at traditional science as a method based on assumptions and estimates
rather than exact truths or data. They do differ however in some ways. Kuhn does not believe that
falsifying theories is necessary to ascertain the truth like Popper does. He simply believes that
society is rapidly changing and therefore the methods of science must change also. Popper does not
necessarily concern himself with sociological opinions or status quos. He focuses more on the
procedures of traditional methods and works to disprove theories. Karl Popper was an Austrian–
British philosopher as well as a professor of science. He grew up in a wealthy family and
surrounded himself with education and knowledge. He attended various lectures and soon found
himself accepting the socialist ideas of Karl

Argument Of Larry Laudan 's Pessimistic Meta Induction Essay
This essay examines the argument of Larry Laudan's Pessimistic Meta Induction (PMI.) The PMI
states that due to the history of unsuccessful theories, the theories we currently believe are true most
likely aren't. I argue that the Pessimistic Meta Induction is fallacious, easily proven invalid by realist
logic, and inapplicable to modern science. Due to advancements in science, arguments made in the
PMI are no longer applicable, and several fallacies can be seen it as well including the turnover
fallacy and gamblers fallacy. These inaccuracies will prove his theory to be improbable. The
Pessimistic Meta Induction is one of the most notable arguments against scientific realism, it
specifically rebuts the scientific realist notion of epistemic optimism. The argument presented by
scientific realist defends that it is rational to believe that our presently successful scientific theories
are true or approximately true, where approximate truth is defined as a theory being able to make
novel predictions towards what the central terms of such theories genuinely refer. The Pessimistic
Meta Induction undermines the realist 's warrant for epistemic optimism by using historical counter
examples. The theory centers around this historical pattern of scientific theories being abolished and
replaced, essentially deeming the old theories false. Because of this the Pessimistic Meta Induction
argues that current scientific theories will eventually be deemed false as well, and therefore we

Post-Modern Ideal
Classical modern ideal of science is the older way of thinking about science and technology. This
ideal is extremely detailed oriented. That being said, classical modern ideal is explanatory in its
method. Being explanatory, research of any type is to answer or question what has no perceivable
answer. Kind of like an explorer would go into a new cave and shed the light on what hid in the
dark. Explanatory research must use numbers and precision ways to measure and record all data.
During the deep sort of research, one must keep in mind that laws must be universal. Something that
is found is not true unless shown to be always right in every single situation, it cannot just be true
some of the time or for the most part. For example, the angles ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The reason trades make you think more than going to college is because trades force you to become
an expert in one topic rather than know little about a lot of topics. Also, when in trades there are
many outside factors that will influence the situation so you, being the expert in that trade, will have
to learn how to read that situation and know the outcomes and how many outcomes are possible
with just one specific situation. And the real world has much more than one specific situation so you
would have to know how to handle many situations. If you are attending school, you are working
with things that are ideal and often there are formulas that help solve ideal situations. An example of
how a trade worker needs to know how to diagnose many variables and situations comes from
Crawford. Crawford talks about when he was trying to figure out an electrical problem in his old
VW his dad said just consider Ohms law. However, Ohms law could not fix the electrical problem it
took keen observing to see if electrical points where: wet, dirty, or loose. Depending on what
environment the car has been driven threw influences what could be causing the electrical problem.
The diagnostic would not be solved from a simple scientific formula but, it took deep thought and
past knowledge

Analysis Of Popper On The Falsifiability Of String Theory
So, Francesca Vada A. December 3, 2015
2BIO–9 PHLSCI
Popper on the Falsifiability of String Theory
Karl Popper is one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century believed that strength of a
scientific theory lies in its both being susceptible to falsification, and not actually being falsified by
criticism made of it. He considered that if a theory cannot, in principle, be falsified by criticism, it is
not a scientific theory.
Today, we are taught that inside an atom, there are protons and neutrons, which are made up of
quarks. String theory said that what we thought as indivisible particles are actually tiny vibrating
strings. Nothing really mystical, but it is a really tiny string. During the 1980s, the idea caught on
and started a string band wagon. The great attraction of the string ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Some scientists, supporting Popper, have suggested that these theories are non–scientific because
they are not falsifiable. String theory says that, "in certain regions of parameter space, ordinary
particles behave as loops or segments of one–dimensional strings. The relevant parameter space
might be inaccessible to us, but it is part of the theory that cannot be avoided. In the cosmological
theoretical reality, regions unlike our own are clearly apparent there, even if we can't reach them."
This is what distinguishes these theories from the approaches Popper was trying to classify as non–
scientific. Popper himself understood that theories should be falsifiable "in principle," but that
modifier is often forgotten in contemporary discussions. It is simple and it goes like this: if string
theory and multiverse theories help us understand the world, they will grow in acceptance. However,
if they prove ultimately too difficult, or better theories come along, they will be

Nonsense On Stilts Summary

More Related Content

Similar to Nonsense On Stilts Summary

More from Cecilia Lucero

Recently uploaded

Nonsense On Stilts Summary