/lit/ - Literature

How would you know if he is an intellectual midget if you haven't read anything he's written?

He's the backbone of my philosophy of science course

The very sort article Science as Falsification is the basics.

>>12512878
>He's the backbone of my philosophy of science course

Holy shit. I love this board!

>>12512878
Let me guess, you also read Thomas Kuhn...

Why this obsolete anti-science crap (Popper, Kuhn etc.) is still taught in Phil. Sci. 101 courses? Why they ignore the last 50 years?

>>12511813
No

>>12512889
>>12512894
>>12512906
I know right? Since you guessed Kuhn, I guessed you guessed that the other main ones are Karl's sons, Lakatos and Feyerabend. The head teacher gets close to orgasm when talking about the latter.
Also did you guys arrive to that conclusion throug inductive or deductive reasoning?

Please answer with only one of the options above, they are the only two methods we've seen.

>>12513017
I knew you would mention Lakatos and Feyerabend (that unironically believed in witchcraft and werewolves). Your teacher is probably a charlatan.

Inductive reasoning is in the realm of statistical inference. Therefore, it involves deduction (since probability and measure theory are mathematical theories). But here is not the place to discuss these things. I recommend that you read Mario Bunge or Alex Rosenberg for a good introduction to Phil. Sci. And David Stove for a critique of charlatans like Kuhn, Lakatos and Feyerabend.

>>12513017
Oh and besides Induction, there is also Abduction (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/)) and, of course, the Inverse Problems approach (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_problem).).

>>12512889
>>12512894
>>12513017
fuck off animenigger

>>12513328
Back to redd*t, faggot, son of a whore.

>>12513047
> Feyerabend (that unironically believed in witchcraft
KEK, we've only been told he appreciated Native North-American healing as it did better to his leg than mainstream medicine, yet the Fey himself said (and wrote) that he liked to change positions in arguments, whether it was for fun as he said, or just pretented to be retarded to avoid defeat, we'll never know.

>here is not the place to discuss these things
tell that to the psycologist, though I'd like to reduce our brief exchange to logic form just for fun.

>Bunge
Holy crap he studied in the same university I am dealing with this! Yet they cry about muh lack of latin-american authors in an entire chapter of our coursebook.

>>12513047
>And David Stove for a critique of charlatans like Kuhn, Lakatos and Feyerabend.

Imagine being a such faggot you failed to master the dialectic

http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/naletov0.html

>>12513515
You're a massive cunt.

>>12511813
Yes. Absolutely everything. Read Everything. The guy wasn't wrong about a single thing, and anybody who pushes a meme otherwise here is just trying to be a contrarian faggot because Popper is the most famous of the bunch.

>>12514306
Dude, Popper was wrong about critique of the theory of evolution and principle of natural selection. He was also wrong in trying to "improve" theory of evolution. He admitted his mistakes in paper "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind".

>>12513059
Based and redpilled reader of Stanford Encyclopedia.

>>12511813
Start with The Logic of Scientific Discovery and later try Conjectures and Refutations and The Poverty of Historicism

>>12511813
Just read Quine he btfod him Duhem-Quine thesis btfod falsificationism don't know what the rest of the idiots on this thread are saying

>>12513017
>Also did you guys arrive to that conclusion throug inductive or deductive reasoning?
It had to be abductive reasoning, as noted by >>12513059
>Please answer with only one of the options above, they are the only two methods we've seen.
But not the only methods I've seen.
>>12516845
Not sayng much about Popper, in case you didn't notice.
>Quine
based

he looks like dracula

>>12511813
He gives great recs of right-wing literature.