|
Falsifiability
Falsifiability is a deductive standard of evaluation of scientific theories and hypotheses that was introduced by the Philosophy of science, philosopher of science Karl Popper in his book ''The Logic of Scientific Discovery'' (1934). He proposed it as the cornerstone solution to both the problem of induction and the demarcation problem, problem of demarcation. A Scientific theory, theory or hypothesis is falsifiable (or refutable) if it can be ''logically'' contradicted by an empirical test using existing technologies. Popper insisted that, as a logical criterion, falsifiability is distinct from the related concept "capacity to be proven wrong" discussed in #Falsificationism, Lakatos' falsificationism. Even being a logical criterion, its purpose is to make the theory predictive power, predictive and Testability, testable, and thus useful in practice. Popper opposed falsifiability to the intuitively similar concept of Verifiability (science), verifiability that was then curren ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Black Swans
Black swan is the common name for ''Cygnus atratus'', an Australasian waterfowl. (The) Black Swan(s) may also refer to: Film and television * ''The Black Swan'' (film), a 1942 swashbuckler film * ''Black Swans'' (film), a 2005 Dutch drama film * ''Black Swan'' (film), a 2010 film starring Natalie Portman *"Black Swan", an episode of '' FlashForward'' *"The Black Swan", an episode of ''Curb Your Enthusiasm'' Literature *Black Swan (imprint), an imprint of Transworld Publishers, UK * ''The Black Swan'' (Lackey novel), a fantasy novel by Mercedes Lackey * ''The Black Swan'' (Mann novel), a short book by Thomas Mann * ''The Black Swan'' (Sabatini novel), a 1932 pirate adventure novel by Rafael Sabatini *'' The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable'', a 2007 book about uncertainty by Nassim Nicholas Taleb *Black Swan (comics), a German Marvel Comics mercenary and enemy to Deadpool and Agent X *"The Black Swan", a 1994 work of short fiction by Grace Andreacchi *"Black Swans", a ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Critical Rationalism
Critical rationalism is an epistemological philosophy advanced by Karl Popper on the basis that, if a statement cannot be logically deduced (from what is known), it might nevertheless be possible to logically falsify it. Following Hume, Popper rejected any inductive logic that is ampliative, i.e., any logic that can provide more knowledge than deductive logic. In other words if we cannot assert it logically, we should at the least try to logically falsify it, which led Popper to his falsifiability criterion. Popper wrote about critical rationalism in many works, including: ''The Logic of Scientific Discovery'' (1934/1959), ''The Open Society and its Enemies'' (1945), ''Conjectures and Refutations'' (1963), '' Unended Quest'' (1976), and ''The Myth of the Framework'' (1994). Criticism, not support Critical rationalists hold that scientific theories and any other claims to knowledge can and should be rationally criticized, and (if they have empirical content) can and should be ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Logical Empiricism
Logical positivism, later called logical empiricism, and both of which together are also known as neopositivism, is a movement in Western philosophy whose central thesis was the verification principle (also known as the verifiability criterion of meaning). This theory of knowledge asserted that only statements verifiable through direct observation or logical proof are meaningful in terms of conveying truth value, information or factual content. Starting in the late 1920s, groups of philosophers, scientists, and mathematicians formed the Berlin Circle and the Vienna Circle, which, in these two cities, would propound the ideas of logical positivism. Flourishing in several European centres through the 1930s, the movement sought to prevent confusion rooted in unclear language and unverifiable claims by converting philosophy into "scientific philosophy", which, according to the logical positivists, ought to share the bases and structures of empirical sciences' best examples, such as ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
David Miller (philosopher)
David William Miller (born 19 August 1942, Watford) is an English philosopher and prominent exponent of critical rationalism. He taught in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Warwick in Coventry, UK. where he is Reader in Philosophy. He has been Honorary Treasurer of the British Society for the Philosophy of Science. He was educated at Woodbridge School and Peterhouse, Cambridge. In 1964 he began to study Logic and Scientific Method at the London School of Economics. Soon afterwards he became one of Karl Popper's research assistants. In a series of papers in the 1970s, Miller and others uncovered defects in Popper's formal definition of verisimilitude, previously a mostly ignored aspect of Popper's theory. A substantial literature developed in the two decades following, including papers by Miller, to assess the remediability of Popper's approach. Miller's '' Critical Rationalism: A Restatement and Defence'' is an attempt to expound, defend, and extend an approach ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Modus Tollens
In propositional logic, ''modus tollens'' () (MT), also known as ''modus tollendo tollens'' (Latin for "method of removing by taking away") and denying the consequent, is a deductive argument form and a rule of inference. ''Modus tollens'' takes the form of "If P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P." It is an application of the general truth that if a statement is true, then so is its contrapositive. The form shows that inference from ''P implies Q'' to ''the negation of Q implies the negation of P'' is a valid argument. The history of the inference rule ''modus tollens'' goes back to antiquity. The first to explicitly describe the argument form ''modus tollens'' was Theophrastus. ''Modus tollens'' is closely related to '' modus ponens''. There are two similar, but invalid, forms of argument: affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent. See also contraposition and proof by contrapositive. Explanation The form of a ''modus tollens'' argument resembles a syllog ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Affirming The Consequent
Affirming the consequent, sometimes called converse error, fallacy of the converse, or confusion of necessity and sufficiency, is a formal fallacy of taking a true conditional statement (e.g., "If the lamp were broken, then the room would be dark"), and invalidly inferring its converse ("The room is dark, so the lamp is broken"), even though that statement may not be true. This arises when a consequent ("the room would be dark") has other possible antecedents (for example, "the lamp is in working order, but is switched off" or "there is no lamp in the room"). Converse errors are common in everyday thinking and communication and can result from, among other causes, communication issues, misconceptions about logic, and failure to consider other causes. The opposite statement, denying the consequent, ''is'' a valid form of argument (modus tollens). Formal description Affirming the consequent is the action of taking a true statement P \to Q and invalidly concluding its converse Q \ ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Logical Fallacy
In philosophy, a formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or non sequitur (; Latin for " tdoes not follow") is a pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure that can neatly be expressed in a standard logic system, for example propositional logic.Harry J. Gensler, ''The A to Z of Logic'' (2010) p. 74. Rowman & Littlefield, It is defined as a deductive argument that is invalid. The argument itself could have true premises, but still have a false conclusion. Thus, a formal fallacy is a fallacy where deduction goes wrong, and is no longer a logical process. This may not affect the truth of the conclusion, since validity and truth are separate in formal logic. While a logical argument is a non sequitur if, and only if, it is invalid, the term "non sequitur" typically refers to those types of invalid arguments which do not constitute formal fallacies covered by particular terms (e.g., affirming the consequent). In other words, in practice, "''non s ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Inductive Reasoning
Inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which a general principle is derived from a body of observations. It consists of making broad generalizations based on specific observations. Inductive reasoning is distinct from ''deductive'' reasoning. If the premises are correct, the conclusion of a deductive argument is ''certain''; in contrast, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is '' probable'', based upon the evidence given. Types The types of inductive reasoning include generalization, prediction, statistical syllogism, argument from analogy, and causal inference. Inductive generalization A generalization (more accurately, an ''inductive generalization'') proceeds from a premise about a sample to a conclusion about the population. The observation obtained from this sample is projected onto the broader population. : The proportion Q of the sample has attribute A. : Therefore, the proportion Q of the population has attribute A. For example, say there ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Validity (logic)
In logic, specifically in deductive reasoning, an argument is valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. It is not required for a valid argument to have premises that are actually true, but to have premises that, if they were true, would guarantee the truth of the argument's conclusion. Valid arguments must be clearly expressed by means of sentences called well-formed formulas (also called ''wffs'' or simply ''formulas''). The validity of an argument can be tested, proved or disproved, and depends on its logical form. Arguments In logic, an argument is a set of statements expressing the ''premises'' (whatever consists of empirical evidences and axiomatic truths) and an ''evidence-based conclusion.'' An argument is ''valid'' if and only if it would be contradictory for the conclusion to be false if all of the premises are true. Validity doesn't require the truth of the premises, inst ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Scientific Law
Scientific laws or laws of science are statements, based on repeated experiments or observations, that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena. The term ''law'' has diverse usage in many cases (approximate, accurate, broad, or narrow) across all fields of natural science (physics, chemistry, astronomy, geoscience, biology). Laws are developed from data and can be further developed through mathematics; in all cases they are directly or indirectly based on empirical evidence. It is generally understood that they implicitly reflect, though they do not explicitly assert, causal relationships fundamental to reality, and are discovered rather than invented. Scientific laws summarize the results of experiments or observations, usually within a certain range of application. In general, the accuracy of a law does not change when a new theory of the relevant phenomenon is worked out, but rather the scope of the law's application, since the mathematics or statement representing th ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Observation
Observation is the active acquisition of information from a primary source. In living beings, observation employs the senses. In science, observation can also involve the perception and recording of data via the use of scientific instruments. The term may also refer to any data collected during the scientific activity. Observations can be qualitative, that is, only the absence or presence of a property is noted, or quantitative if a numerical value is attached to the observed phenomenon by counting or measuring. Science The scientific method requires observations of natural phenomena to formulate and test hypotheses. It consists of the following steps: # Ask a question about a natural phenomenon # Make observations of the phenomenon # Formulate a hypothesis that tentatively answers the question # Predict logical, observable consequences of the hypothesis that have not yet been investigated # Test the hypothesis' predictions by an experiment, observational study, field study, or ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Scientific Method
The scientific method is an empirical method for acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century (with notable practitioners in previous centuries; see the article history of scientific method for additional detail.) It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; the testability of hypotheses, experimental and the measurement-based statistical testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are ''principles'' of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises. Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, the underlying process is frequently the sa ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
.svg "Click for more on -> Inductive Reasoning")
