Karl Popper was an influential 20th century philosopher best known for his rejection of the idea that science aims to verify theories. He argued that science progresses through bold conjectures being subjected to attempts at falsification, not verification. Popper also believed in fallibilism, the idea that all knowledge is conjectural and subject to revision. He developed the concept of critical rationalism, which uses criticism to eliminate errors in theories and progress toward the truth. Popper analyzed the differences between open and closed societies and advocated for piecemeal social engineering over utopian attempts to reshape society.
Karl Popper, as a critical rationalist, was an opponent of all forms of skepticism, conventionalism and relativism in science. A major argument of Popper is Hume's critique of induction, arguing that induction should never be used in science. But he disagrees with the skepticism associated with Hume, nor with the support of Bacon and Newton's pure "observation" as a starting point in the formation of theories, as there are no pure observations that do not imply certain theories. Instead, Popper proposes falsifiability as a method of scientific investigation.
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11481.36967
Karl Popper, as a critical rationalist, was an opponent of all forms of skepticism, conventionalism and relativism in science. A major argument of Popper is Hume's critique of induction, arguing that induction should never be used in science. But he disagrees with the skepticism associated with Hume, nor with the support of Bacon and Newton's pure "observation" as a starting point in the formation of theories, as there are no pure observations that do not imply certain theories. Instead, Popper proposes falsifiability as a method of scientific investigation.
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11481.36967
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 ...
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.
The contemporary philosophy of science & the problem of the scientific consciousness.
...The understanding of scientific knowledge requires reflective thinking. The reflective thinking could restore the communication between subject and object, between social sciences and natural sciences. Only then, communication between facts and values can achieved. In other words, communication between reason and myth, science and art, knowledge and wisdom, empirical research and the existential question for the meaning of life.
...the problem of scientific consciousness (liability) requires the transformation of the structures of the same knowledge. The sovereignty of uncontrolled scientism-positivism leads to brutalization and the reaction to it, leads to metaphysical obscurantism and madness. The researcher should be aware of the complex and reciprocal relationships between the scientific, technical, social and political worlds...
Scientism, or the unity of scientific method. The positivist
methodology does not see any difference between the
natural and the social sciences. The adoption however, of
the unity of the scientific method is accepted in tandem
with the notion of the predominant role of the natural
sciences, in which the social sciences see their model.
The outcome is what we call scientism, that is the view
that only the natural sciences can produce the semantic
interpretation of knowledge.
The contemporary philosophy of science (epistemology) featuring K.Popper, T.Kuhn, I.Lakatos, P.Feyerabend, Hanson among others, has exercised a decisive critique to the dominant views of the positivist and neo-positivist model of knowledge and has in fact undermined its credibility.
THE SELF CRITICISM OF SCIENCE - ALEXIS KARPOUZOSalexis karpouzos
The neoteric human being is now being cut off from the order of nature and establishes itself as the rationally re- flecting and acting subject which is now posited against the object of its cognitive and practical activity. Civiliza- tion is constituted as the product of human activity, as an artifact and technical construct. iWth this development, human civilization is transformed to a ‘quasi nature’, aim- ing to correct and replace nature, and man assumes the nature of a technical existence. By ‘technical existence’ we mean the prevalence of a one-dimensional image of the human person as the producer of rational hypotheses and interpretations and the downgrading and degrada- tion of the non-rational element of human existence, i.e. the radical imagination as a creative capacity, which forms the a priori condition and prerequisite for social activity. This constitutive element of the modern world (man, as the producer of rational hypotheses) and its ar- ticulation with the ideology of techno-scientific progress and the evolution of the machine that transforms the methods and theories of natural sciences, arming these with new tools and constantly renovating their research and experimental capabilities, finally led to the replace- ment of religious and metaphysical dogmas by the blind faith to the dogma of technical and scientific progress.
L-name 1
Your name
My name
Course (including section)
Date
Empiricism vs. Rationalism
Epistemology is the study of knowledge, what knowledge is, what we can know and how we can know it. The two main parts of Epistemology are Empiricism and Rationalism. The disagreement between rationalism and empiricism is the way in which we gain knowledge. Rationalism is a theory that reason is the basis of all certainty of knowledge whereas empiricism is based on the principles that all knowledge comes from experience especially that from our senses and that the knowledge we acquire is the basis of our understanding. Rational knowledge occurs in any situation where we are taught something. Impersonal or propositional knowledge are examples of rational knowledge for the reason that through both logic is used to acquire knowledge. Rational knowledge requires the mind to be active in gaining knowledge whereas experience is downplayed. Descartes is a key rationalist thinker.
Empiricists share the view that there is no such thing as innate knowledge, and that instead knowledge is derived from experience either sensed via the five senses or reasoned via the brain or mind. A key Empiricist is John Locke. Each theory, however, has a problem of knowledge because you can never solely have empirical or rational knowledge. This essay will explore the arguments for each theory in turn.
The fundamental idea of Empiricism is that we can only be sure of something once it has been tested, proven and experienced. An Empiricist would argue that we ought to only make decisions once a person has got the information needed in order to make fact, usually by using the five senses. Empiricism has been used to explain aspects in philosophy and science. Empiricism in philosophy focuses on the roles of experience and evidence and the use of humans’ sensory awareness. In science, empiricism is associated with the knowledge that is based upon evidence, which has been gained through scientific experiment in order to prove.
It may be argued that Empiricism is ‘simpler’, as rationalism has one more entity that exists which is innate knowledge. According to empiricism, the innate knowledge is unobservable and inefficacious, it does not do anything. It is knowledge that may never be used. Using ‘Ockham’s Razor’, a principle that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, Empiricism is easily the simpler theory.
Another argument, is the argument of color. Those with a sight impairment would be unable to know what colors look like as they would be unable to see them. The only way to have known about colors would be to see them and experience them. However, Descartes and Plato would reject this argument, arguing that we have innate knowledge of the forms [mathematical objects and concepts], moral concepts [goodness, beauty, virtue and piety] and possibly color. Descartes believes that the idea of God, or perfection and infinity and knowledge of ...
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
Science is a sphere of human activity in which objective knowledge about reality is developed and systematized theoretically. The main functions of science are explanatory and predictive functions. Science is a complex multifaceted integral phenomenon, and the process of development of scientific knowledge is not a unidirectional process, but a nonlinear one, characterized by multidirection. This is a process in which new growth points, diverse opportunities and situations of choice arise.
Science studies not only the surrounding reality, but also itself as a part of this reality. There is a whole complex of disciplines studying science, which includes the history and logic of science, psychology of scientific creativity, sociology of knowledge, etc. However, it is the philosophy of science that studies science as an integral phenomenon, exploring the general laws of scientific and cognitive activity, the structure and dynamics of scientific knowledge, its levels and forms, its socio-cultural determination, means and methods of scientific cognition, ways of its justification and mechanisms of knowledge development.
The philosophy of science began to take shape in the middle of the twentieth century. As a scientific discipline, the philosophy of science differs from the direction in Western and domestic philosophy, which bears the same name and originated a century earlier.
The Roman Empire A Historical Colossus.pdfkaushalkr1407
The Roman Empire, a vast and enduring power, stands as one of history's most remarkable civilizations, leaving an indelible imprint on the world. It emerged from the Roman Republic, transitioning into an imperial powerhouse under the leadership of Augustus Caesar in 27 BCE. This transformation marked the beginning of an era defined by unprecedented territorial expansion, architectural marvels, and profound cultural influence.
The empire's roots lie in the city of Rome, founded, according to legend, by Romulus in 753 BCE. Over centuries, Rome evolved from a small settlement to a formidable republic, characterized by a complex political system with elected officials and checks on power. However, internal strife, class conflicts, and military ambitions paved the way for the end of the Republic. Julius Caesar’s dictatorship and subsequent assassination in 44 BCE created a power vacuum, leading to a civil war. Octavian, later Augustus, emerged victorious, heralding the Roman Empire’s birth.
Under Augustus, the empire experienced the Pax Romana, a 200-year period of relative peace and stability. Augustus reformed the military, established efficient administrative systems, and initiated grand construction projects. The empire's borders expanded, encompassing territories from Britain to Egypt and from Spain to the Euphrates. Roman legions, renowned for their discipline and engineering prowess, secured and maintained these vast territories, building roads, fortifications, and cities that facilitated control and integration.
The Roman Empire’s society was hierarchical, with a rigid class system. At the top were the patricians, wealthy elites who held significant political power. Below them were the plebeians, free citizens with limited political influence, and the vast numbers of slaves who formed the backbone of the economy. The family unit was central, governed by the paterfamilias, the male head who held absolute authority.
Culturally, the Romans were eclectic, absorbing and adapting elements from the civilizations they encountered, particularly the Greeks. Roman art, literature, and philosophy reflected this synthesis, creating a rich cultural tapestry. Latin, the Roman language, became the lingua franca of the Western world, influencing numerous modern languages.
Roman architecture and engineering achievements were monumental. They perfected the arch, vault, and dome, constructing enduring structures like the Colosseum, Pantheon, and aqueducts. These engineering marvels not only showcased Roman ingenuity but also served practical purposes, from public entertainment to water supply.
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 ...
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.
The contemporary philosophy of science & the problem of the scientific consciousness.
...The understanding of scientific knowledge requires reflective thinking. The reflective thinking could restore the communication between subject and object, between social sciences and natural sciences. Only then, communication between facts and values can achieved. In other words, communication between reason and myth, science and art, knowledge and wisdom, empirical research and the existential question for the meaning of life.
...the problem of scientific consciousness (liability) requires the transformation of the structures of the same knowledge. The sovereignty of uncontrolled scientism-positivism leads to brutalization and the reaction to it, leads to metaphysical obscurantism and madness. The researcher should be aware of the complex and reciprocal relationships between the scientific, technical, social and political worlds...
Scientism, or the unity of scientific method. The positivist
methodology does not see any difference between the
natural and the social sciences. The adoption however, of
the unity of the scientific method is accepted in tandem
with the notion of the predominant role of the natural
sciences, in which the social sciences see their model.
The outcome is what we call scientism, that is the view
that only the natural sciences can produce the semantic
interpretation of knowledge.
The contemporary philosophy of science (epistemology) featuring K.Popper, T.Kuhn, I.Lakatos, P.Feyerabend, Hanson among others, has exercised a decisive critique to the dominant views of the positivist and neo-positivist model of knowledge and has in fact undermined its credibility.
THE SELF CRITICISM OF SCIENCE - ALEXIS KARPOUZOSalexis karpouzos
The neoteric human being is now being cut off from the order of nature and establishes itself as the rationally re- flecting and acting subject which is now posited against the object of its cognitive and practical activity. Civiliza- tion is constituted as the product of human activity, as an artifact and technical construct. iWth this development, human civilization is transformed to a ‘quasi nature’, aim- ing to correct and replace nature, and man assumes the nature of a technical existence. By ‘technical existence’ we mean the prevalence of a one-dimensional image of the human person as the producer of rational hypotheses and interpretations and the downgrading and degrada- tion of the non-rational element of human existence, i.e. the radical imagination as a creative capacity, which forms the a priori condition and prerequisite for social activity. This constitutive element of the modern world (man, as the producer of rational hypotheses) and its ar- ticulation with the ideology of techno-scientific progress and the evolution of the machine that transforms the methods and theories of natural sciences, arming these with new tools and constantly renovating their research and experimental capabilities, finally led to the replace- ment of religious and metaphysical dogmas by the blind faith to the dogma of technical and scientific progress.
L-name 1
Your name
My name
Course (including section)
Date
Empiricism vs. Rationalism
Epistemology is the study of knowledge, what knowledge is, what we can know and how we can know it. The two main parts of Epistemology are Empiricism and Rationalism. The disagreement between rationalism and empiricism is the way in which we gain knowledge. Rationalism is a theory that reason is the basis of all certainty of knowledge whereas empiricism is based on the principles that all knowledge comes from experience especially that from our senses and that the knowledge we acquire is the basis of our understanding. Rational knowledge occurs in any situation where we are taught something. Impersonal or propositional knowledge are examples of rational knowledge for the reason that through both logic is used to acquire knowledge. Rational knowledge requires the mind to be active in gaining knowledge whereas experience is downplayed. Descartes is a key rationalist thinker.
Empiricists share the view that there is no such thing as innate knowledge, and that instead knowledge is derived from experience either sensed via the five senses or reasoned via the brain or mind. A key Empiricist is John Locke. Each theory, however, has a problem of knowledge because you can never solely have empirical or rational knowledge. This essay will explore the arguments for each theory in turn.
The fundamental idea of Empiricism is that we can only be sure of something once it has been tested, proven and experienced. An Empiricist would argue that we ought to only make decisions once a person has got the information needed in order to make fact, usually by using the five senses. Empiricism has been used to explain aspects in philosophy and science. Empiricism in philosophy focuses on the roles of experience and evidence and the use of humans’ sensory awareness. In science, empiricism is associated with the knowledge that is based upon evidence, which has been gained through scientific experiment in order to prove.
It may be argued that Empiricism is ‘simpler’, as rationalism has one more entity that exists which is innate knowledge. According to empiricism, the innate knowledge is unobservable and inefficacious, it does not do anything. It is knowledge that may never be used. Using ‘Ockham’s Razor’, a principle that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, Empiricism is easily the simpler theory.
Another argument, is the argument of color. Those with a sight impairment would be unable to know what colors look like as they would be unable to see them. The only way to have known about colors would be to see them and experience them. However, Descartes and Plato would reject this argument, arguing that we have innate knowledge of the forms [mathematical objects and concepts], moral concepts [goodness, beauty, virtue and piety] and possibly color. Descartes believes that the idea of God, or perfection and infinity and knowledge of ...
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
Science is a sphere of human activity in which objective knowledge about reality is developed and systematized theoretically. The main functions of science are explanatory and predictive functions. Science is a complex multifaceted integral phenomenon, and the process of development of scientific knowledge is not a unidirectional process, but a nonlinear one, characterized by multidirection. This is a process in which new growth points, diverse opportunities and situations of choice arise.
Science studies not only the surrounding reality, but also itself as a part of this reality. There is a whole complex of disciplines studying science, which includes the history and logic of science, psychology of scientific creativity, sociology of knowledge, etc. However, it is the philosophy of science that studies science as an integral phenomenon, exploring the general laws of scientific and cognitive activity, the structure and dynamics of scientific knowledge, its levels and forms, its socio-cultural determination, means and methods of scientific cognition, ways of its justification and mechanisms of knowledge development.
The philosophy of science began to take shape in the middle of the twentieth century. As a scientific discipline, the philosophy of science differs from the direction in Western and domestic philosophy, which bears the same name and originated a century earlier.
The Roman Empire A Historical Colossus.pdfkaushalkr1407
The Roman Empire, a vast and enduring power, stands as one of history's most remarkable civilizations, leaving an indelible imprint on the world. It emerged from the Roman Republic, transitioning into an imperial powerhouse under the leadership of Augustus Caesar in 27 BCE. This transformation marked the beginning of an era defined by unprecedented territorial expansion, architectural marvels, and profound cultural influence.
The empire's roots lie in the city of Rome, founded, according to legend, by Romulus in 753 BCE. Over centuries, Rome evolved from a small settlement to a formidable republic, characterized by a complex political system with elected officials and checks on power. However, internal strife, class conflicts, and military ambitions paved the way for the end of the Republic. Julius Caesar’s dictatorship and subsequent assassination in 44 BCE created a power vacuum, leading to a civil war. Octavian, later Augustus, emerged victorious, heralding the Roman Empire’s birth.
Under Augustus, the empire experienced the Pax Romana, a 200-year period of relative peace and stability. Augustus reformed the military, established efficient administrative systems, and initiated grand construction projects. The empire's borders expanded, encompassing territories from Britain to Egypt and from Spain to the Euphrates. Roman legions, renowned for their discipline and engineering prowess, secured and maintained these vast territories, building roads, fortifications, and cities that facilitated control and integration.
The Roman Empire’s society was hierarchical, with a rigid class system. At the top were the patricians, wealthy elites who held significant political power. Below them were the plebeians, free citizens with limited political influence, and the vast numbers of slaves who formed the backbone of the economy. The family unit was central, governed by the paterfamilias, the male head who held absolute authority.
Culturally, the Romans were eclectic, absorbing and adapting elements from the civilizations they encountered, particularly the Greeks. Roman art, literature, and philosophy reflected this synthesis, creating a rich cultural tapestry. Latin, the Roman language, became the lingua franca of the Western world, influencing numerous modern languages.
Roman architecture and engineering achievements were monumental. They perfected the arch, vault, and dome, constructing enduring structures like the Colosseum, Pantheon, and aqueducts. These engineering marvels not only showcased Roman ingenuity but also served practical purposes, from public entertainment to water supply.
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!
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
Palestine last event orientationfvgnh .pptxRaedMohamed3
An EFL lesson about the current events in Palestine. It is intended to be for intermediate students who wish to increase their listening skills through a short lesson in power point.
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.
June 3, 2024 Anti-Semitism Letter Sent to MIT President Kornbluth and MIT Cor...Levi Shapiro
Letter from the Congress of the United States regarding Anti-Semitism sent June 3rd to MIT President Sally Kornbluth, MIT Corp Chair, Mark Gorenberg
Dear Dr. Kornbluth and Mr. Gorenberg,
The US House of Representatives is deeply concerned by ongoing and pervasive acts of antisemitic
harassment and intimidation at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Failing to act decisively to ensure a safe learning environment for all students would be a grave dereliction of your responsibilities as President of MIT and Chair of the MIT Corporation.
This Congress will not stand idly by and allow an environment hostile to Jewish students to persist. The House believes that your institution is in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and the inability or
unwillingness to rectify this violation through action requires accountability.
Postsecondary education is a unique opportunity for students to learn and have their ideas and beliefs challenged. However, universities receiving hundreds of millions of federal funds annually have denied
students that opportunity and have been hijacked to become venues for the promotion of terrorism, antisemitic harassment and intimidation, unlawful encampments, and in some cases, assaults and riots.
The House of Representatives will not countenance the use of federal funds to indoctrinate students into hateful, antisemitic, anti-American supporters of terrorism. Investigations into campus antisemitism by the Committee on Education and the Workforce and the Committee on Ways and Means have been expanded into a Congress-wide probe across all relevant jurisdictions to address this national crisis. The undersigned Committees will conduct oversight into the use of federal funds at MIT and its learning environment under authorities granted to each Committee.
• The Committee on Education and the Workforce has been investigating your institution since December 7, 2023. The Committee has broad jurisdiction over postsecondary education, including its compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, campus safety concerns over disruptions to the learning environment, and the awarding of federal student aid under the Higher Education Act.
• The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is investigating the sources of funding and other support flowing to groups espousing pro-Hamas propaganda and engaged in antisemitic harassment and intimidation of students. The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is the principal oversight committee of the US House of Representatives and has broad authority to investigate “any matter” at “any time” under House Rule X.
• The Committee on Ways and Means has been investigating several universities since November 15, 2023, when the Committee held a hearing entitled From Ivory Towers to Dark Corners: Investigating the Nexus Between Antisemitism, Tax-Exempt Universities, and Terror Financing. The Committee followed the hearing with letters to those institutions on January 10, 202
Biological screening of herbal drugs: Introduction and Need for
Phyto-Pharmacological Screening, New Strategies for evaluating
Natural Products, In vitro evaluation techniques for Antioxidants, Antimicrobial and Anticancer drugs. In vivo evaluation techniques
for Anti-inflammatory, Antiulcer, Anticancer, Wound healing, Antidiabetic, Hepatoprotective, Cardio protective, Diuretics and
Antifertility, Toxicity studies as per OECD guidelines
Synthetic Fiber Construction in lab .pptxPavel ( NSTU)
Synthetic fiber production is a fascinating and complex field that blends chemistry, engineering, and environmental science. By understanding these aspects, students can gain a comprehensive view of synthetic fiber production, its impact on society and the environment, and the potential for future innovations. Synthetic fibers play a crucial role in modern society, impacting various aspects of daily life, industry, and the environment. ynthetic fibers are integral to modern life, offering a range of benefits from cost-effectiveness and versatility to innovative applications and performance characteristics. While they pose environmental challenges, ongoing research and development aim to create more sustainable and eco-friendly alternatives. Understanding the importance of synthetic fibers helps in appreciating their role in the economy, industry, and daily life, while also emphasizing the need for sustainable practices and innovation.
2024.06.01 Introducing a competency framework for languag learning materials ...Sandy Millin
http://sandymillin.wordpress.com/iateflwebinar2024
Published classroom materials form the basis of syllabuses, drive teacher professional development, and have a potentially huge influence on learners, teachers and education systems. All teachers also create their own materials, whether a few sentences on a blackboard, a highly-structured fully-realised online course, or anything in between. Despite this, the knowledge and skills needed to create effective language learning materials are rarely part of teacher training, and are mostly learnt by trial and error.
Knowledge and skills frameworks, generally called competency frameworks, for ELT teachers, trainers and managers have existed for a few years now. However, until I created one for my MA dissertation, there wasn’t one drawing together what we need to know and do to be able to effectively produce language learning materials.
This webinar will introduce you to my framework, highlighting the key competencies I identified from my research. It will also show how anybody involved in language teaching (any language, not just English!), teacher training, managing schools or developing language learning materials can benefit from using the framework.
BÀI TẬP BỔ TRỢ TIẾNG ANH GLOBAL SUCCESS LỚP 3 - CẢ NĂM (CÓ FILE NGHE VÀ ĐÁP Á...
zagrebkarlpopper2014.ppt
1. The Philosophy of Karl Raimund
Popper
"We have to learn the lesson that intellectual honesty
is fundamental for everything we cherish".
2. Popper is a systematic philosopher with wide-
ranging interests.
He is a critical fallibilist (imperfectionist) in
epistemology and an anti-perfectionist in politics.
His ontology is based on the idea that there are
three worlds, the first of material entities, the second
of subjective minds and the third of objective
knowledge.
He wrote very little about education directly yet his
work has interested philosophers of education
working on such diverse topics as
the relationship between theory and practice,
the nature of science education,
learning theory, political philosophy, critical thinking,
problem-solving and social and organisational
change.
3. What is critical rationalism?
"Critical Rationalism" is the name given to a
strand of philosophy that considers the nature of
problems and their solutions. It encourages a
style of thinking that addresses real problems in
a practical way, leading to real solutions.
The main Questions addressed are
1. How do we know what we know, and how can
we tell whether it is true or not?
2. What is the best way to solve problems?
"Problems" is used in a wide sense here: you
are in a given situation, and you would like to
change it. Life, in this sense, is series of
problems, and so is the acquisition of new
knowledge.
4. Karl Popper ‘s philosophy reveals through his
works
First one is The Logic of Scientific Discovery ,1934
Although scientific theories cannot be verified or
even rendered probable by evidence, they can be
falsified. Science makes progress by putting
forward falsifiable conjectures.
When a scientific theory is falsified empirically, the
task then becomes to think up an even better
theory.
The new theory must predict all the success of the
old theory, predict successfully the phenomena that
falsified the old theory, and predict new phenomena
5. In The Poverty of Historicism
Demolishes the view that social science can
predict the way how societies evolve.
The Logic of Scientific Discovery
Deals how the view of social science should
be developed like that of natural science.
6. The Open Society and Its Enemies
Popper argues that a fundamental problem confronting
humanity is that of moving from a closed, tribal way of life
to an open society.
The closed society is a society that has just one view of the
world, one set of values, one basic way of life. It is a world
dominated by dogma, fixed taboos and magic, devoid of
doubt and uncertainty.
The open society, by contrast, tolerates diversity of views,
values and ways of life.
In the open society learning through criticism is possible
just because diverse views and values are tolerated. For
Popper, the open society is the civilized society, in which
individual freedom and responsibility, justice, democracy,
humane values, reason and science can flourish.
7. Conjectures and Refutations, is a collection of
essays which restate alsification in a more
accessible way.
Objective Knowledge, draws on the analogy
between Darwinian evolution and scientific
progress
There exists, in addition to the material world and
the psychological world, a third world of theories,
problems and arguments
The Self and Its Brain, written with the neurologist
John Eccles applies Popper's "third world" view
to the mind-body problem.
Three volumes of The Postscript deals with the
8. Two issues were of central concern to Popper.
The first was the problem of how to
distinguish science from pseudo-science.
Popper was impressed by the difference
between the theories of Marx, Freud and Adler
on the one hand, and Einstein's general theory
of relativity, on the other.
The former theories seemed able to explain
phenomena and nothing could tell against
these theories.
9. Einstein's theory, by contrast, issued in a
definite prediction; light travelling near the sun
would pursue a curved path due to the
gravitational field of the sun. If this did not
happen, Einstein's theory would be refuted.
Popper considered that this constituted the
key difference between pseudo and genuine
scientific theories: whereas the former were
unrefutable, the latter were open to empirical
refutation.
10. The other problem that preoccupied Popper
was the logic, or methodology, of scientific
discovery:
How does science acquire new knowledge?
How this can be adopted for the advent of
social theories?
11. Moving from the closed to the open society imposes a great
psychological burden on the individuals involved, "the strain of
civilization".
Instead of the security of the tribe, organic, dogmatic and
devoid of doubt, there is all the uncertainty and insecurity of
the open society, the painful necessity of taking personal
responsibility for one's life in a state of ignorance, the lack of
intimacy associated with the "abstract society" in which
individuals constantly rub shoulders with strangers.
This transition, from the closed to the open society is, for
Popper, "one of the deepest revolutions through which
mankind has passed.
Many cannot bear the burden of freedom and doubt, and long
for the false security and certainties of the closed society.
Some of the greatest thinkers like Plato and Aristotle in more
recent times, Hegel and Marx have done this.
12. Unrestricted capitalism of Marx's time has subsequently
become both more economically successful and more just and
humane as a result of diverse political interventions.
It is also too easy to suppose that the new political leaders
would seize and hold onto power, justifying this by exploiting
and twisting the revolutionary ideology and by invoking the
threat of counter-revolutionary forces.
Marx's economic historicism is not just false; it is pseudo-
scientific. Long-term prediction is possible only for
exceptionally simple systems.
In the case of social systems, incredibly complex and open to
the influence of a multitude of unpredictable factors, the idea
that science should be able to deliver long-term predictions is
hopelessly unwarranted
13. According to Karl Popper
Both scientific method and rationality need to be
understood in social terms.
It should not be imagined that a study of the past will
enable the future to be predicted with any reliable degree
of certainty.
Using utopian social engineering to attain an ideal social
order, such as socialism is a failure. Instead a ‘piecemeal
social engineering’ process that searches for and fights
against the greatest and most urgent evils of society is
to be sought for constantly.
14. Science makes progress by proposing bold
conjectures in response to problems, which are then
subjected to sustained attempted empirical refutation.
This falsificationist conception of scientific method is
then generalized to form a general methodology for
solving problems or making progress.
This is refered to as critical rationalism.
15. CRITICAL RATIONALISM can be understood, in Popper’s
own words, as admitting that,
‘I may be wrong and you may be right’, and that
‘by an effort, we may get nearer to the truth’.
We have to think
negative about positives and
positive about negatives and turn the
conformation of truths to falsification of generalisations.
By this he refutes the utopian idea of
“ Ultimate Solution of Problems”
16. Three Core Concepts of Critical Rationalism
Critical Rationalism is an effort by which we discover a
problem, propose a theory as a tentative solution, implement
the theory to eliminate errors that we find in it, and by
eliminating those errors we progress to the discovery of a new
problem.
The three core concepts of critical rationalism are
FALLIBILISM, CRITICISM & VERISIMILITUDE.
17. FALLIBILISM
Popper argued that
What was once substantiated historically by fact may later turn
out to be false.
Our scientific knowledge is fallible because we cannot ‘justify’
our theories by showing that they are always and actually true.
In addition, there is also the limitation of our ability to predict
the future course of history, not because of our inability to
predict the future growth of human knowledge, but because
such a thing as growing human knowledge, then we cannot
anticipate today what we shall know only tomorrow.
Thus, his fallibilism disregards authoritative sources of
knowledge. Instead, he argues that nothing is secure and that
our knowledge is conjectural and fallible.
18. CRITICISM
Since we learn from our mistakes, fallibilism should not lead to
skeptical or relativist conclusions.
Popper claims that criticism is the only way we have of
detecting our mistakes, and of learning from them in a
systematic way.
Criticism includes criticising the theories or conjectures of
others and of our own. It consists of deductive logical reasoning
to remove inconsistencies from our theories, modify or refine
or replace our theories when they do not do what they are
intended to do or when contradictions occur.
Popper rejected all attempts to justification of theories; instead
he replaced justification with criticism.
19. VERISIMILITUDE
getting closer to the truth
Popper regarded the search for verisimilitude rather than
truth as a more realistic aim of science because while we
cannot have sufficiently good arguments for claiming that
we have attained the truth, we can have good arguments
for claiming that we have made progress towards the truth.
In other words, P2 is epistemicaly more progressive than
its predecessor P1 and therefore it is preferred.
P1 ---> TT ---> EE ---> P2
20. Popper’s Three Worlds
According to Popper individuals engage with their
surroundings on three levels.
World 1
Physical world or the world of physical states
World 2
Mental world or the world of mental states
World 3
World of ideas
It is a world of possible objects of thought:
the world of theories in themselves and their logical
relations; of arguments in themselves ;
and of problem situations in themselves.
21. The three Worlds are so interrelated that
the first two can interact and the last two can interact.
We can say that the second world, which is the world of
subjective or personal experiences, interacts with
each of the other two Worlds.
The first and third Worlds cannot interact; they can only
do so through the intervention of the second World,
the world of subjective or personal experiences.
In other words, the second World acts as a mediator
between the first and the third.