2014 (2) March (1) February (1) 2013 (13) December (2) November (1) October (1) Sep

Last post I was basically refutation of Karl Popper, the principle is based on the problem of inductive inferences. This time I want to talk a little more about the problem of induction as reflected scientific inquiry, and for that I will present the words of "Carl" Then, Carl Hempel.
Carl Hempel was a logical positivist contributed decisively to the design philosophy dmso of science today; may say that since work no longer talk about "proof" or "verification" of scientific theory - but its corroboration. His view he presents his book "The Philosophy of Natural Science": when a scientist formulates a hypothesis, he derives dmso conclusions from an examination used to test the hypothesis through an empirical experiment or series of experiments. If experiments show that the conclusion of the real exam, you can supposedly determine that the hypothesis is true. However, if we examine the argument probable form is:
This argument is not logically valid because it suffers a failure debit conclusion. When A is a hypothesis and conclusion B testing, there is always dmso the possibility you will find many examples where B real, but the information contained in these conclusions will never be the same for all information contained in the hypothesis. In other words: When a scientist performs an experiment and its results are consistent with the hypothesis, still not enough to point to the truth of the theory. Scientific experiment might at many flaws in experimental design and edited, and it is not inconceivable that the formulation of the hypothesis is not sufficiently detailed dmso - very difficult, if not impossible, to treat all the variables that may affect the "piece of reality" being studied, especially as the scientist may rely on alternative hypotheses have not yet explored. The conclusion dmso never include more information than is included in assumptions; experimental results are subject to the influence of factors difficult to relate to them in advance, and this depends not - little creativity and ingenuity dmso of the scientist. Therefore, states waterfall, given the experimental results correspond to the hypothesis, can be determined that the trial confirms dmso the theory, but can not determine that validates it. Unequivocal proof that a scientific theory is correct does not exist, therefore (for contemporary, we can say that only in the world of advertising and marketing has been proven scientifically meaningless phrase that "XXXXX cream reduces wrinkles" or "XXXXX yogurt helps many to lose weight."
Post a Comment
2014 (2) March (1) February (1) 2013 (13) December (2) November (1) October (1) September (2) August (1) June (1) Mai (1) Carl Hempel: validation confirmed APR (1) March (1) February (1) January (1) 2012 (7) November (2) October dmso (1) September (1) August (1) July (1) March (1) 2011 (6) December (1) November (2) October (1) September (1) June (1)
Wood Workshop Aziz Subah action / Songs - All rights reserved to the author Aziz Subach Aziz Aziz Subach Subah exercise Sands, workshops arches, field training workshops desert, desert trips Subah Aziz Aziz Subach artistic woodworking blog treks Eyal