Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Methodological falsificationism replaces the contradicting observation in a falsification with a "contradicting observation" accepted by convention among scientists, a convention that implies four kinds of decisions that have these respective goals: the selection of all basic statements (statements that correspond to logically possible ...
The founder of critical rationalism: Karl Popper. In the mid-twentieth century, several important philosophers began to critique the foundations of logical positivism.In his work The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934), Karl Popper, the founder of critical rationalism, argued that scientific knowledge grows from falsifying conjectures rather than any inductive principle and that ...
Testability is a primary aspect of science [1] and the scientific method.There are two components to testability: Falsifiability or defeasibility, which means that counterexamples to the hypothesis are logically possible.
Incomplete comparison – insufficient information is provided to make a complete comparison. Intentionality fallacy – the insistence that the ultimate meaning of an expression must be consistent with the intention of the person from whom the communication originated (e.g. a work of fiction that is widely received as a blatant allegory must ...
[12] Thus, "fallacious arguments usually have the deceptive appearance of being good arguments, [13] because for most fallacious instances of an argument form, a similar but non-fallacious instance can be found". Evaluating an instance of an argument as fallacious is therefore often a matter of evaluating the context of the argument.
A false statement, also known as a falsehood, falsity, misstatement or untruth, is a statement that is false or does not align with reality.This concept spans various fields, including communication, law, linguistics, and philosophy.
A distinction without a difference is a type of logical fallacy where an author or speaker attempts to describe a distinction between two things where no discernible difference exists. [1] It is particularly used when a word or phrase has connotations associated with it that one party to an argument prefers to avoid.
Even a highly unlikely theory that conflicts with a current observation (and is thus false, like "all swans are white") must be considered to be better than one which fits observations perfectly, but is highly probable (like "all swans have a color"). This insight is the crucial difference between naive falsificationism and critical rationalism.