[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]

2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 11 KB, 300x377, popper2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

1387514

Anonymous Mon Jul 12 13:58:14 2010 No.1387514 [Reply] [Original]

Critical Rationalism vs Logical Positivism

GO!

pic related, it's Sir Karl fucking Popper

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 12 13:59:14 2010 No.1387524 Logical Positivism = fail see Problem of Induction

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 12 13:59:14 2010 No.1387532 >>1387524 Popper didn't solve the problem of induction either, he just said "we have to accept a confirmed theory, cause I say so"

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 12 14:00:14 2010 No.1387537 >>1387524 Gerhard Schurz has a convincing pragmatic solution to the problem of induction. It's a form of meta-induction, but it's not circular

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 12 14:01:14 2010 No.1387543 >>1387532 I am rather sure he didn't actually say that

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 12 14:03:14 2010 No.1387555 critical rationalism doesn't allow most scientific evidence we use today. According to critical rationalism transitional fossils don't confirm evolution, because a lack of them wouldnt falsify it

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 12 14:03:14 2010 No.1387562 >>1387537 sauce?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 12 14:03:14 2010 No.1387564 Scientists today are largely a bunch of positivists. Philosophers still don't get it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 12 14:03:14 2010 No.1387566 >>1387532 Make that strawman dance. Dance!

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 12 14:04:14 2010 No.1387576 File: 55 KB, 496x496, mao-rtfm-496x496.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] it's an article by Gerhard Schurz called "Meta-Induction and social epistemology" or something

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 12 14:06:14 2010 No.1387583 >>1387564 actually most philosophers are positivists now, too, I think... I cant think of any other critical rationalists than Musgrave right now

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 12 14:06:14 2010 No.1387591 >>1387583 Oh and Hans Albert is still alive, too

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 12 14:06:14 2010 No.1387592 >>1387583 Not most. Way not most. Most scientific ones are some form of in though.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 12 14:07:14 2010 No.1387601 >>1387566 well my point was that he didn't really convincingly argue why we should accept a confirmed theory of an unconfirmed but not falsified one