Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Lakatos says that Popper's solution to these criticisms requires that one relaxes the assumption that an observation can show a theory to be false: [F] If a theory is falsified [in the usual sense], it is proven false; if it is 'falsified' [in the technical sense], it may still be true. —
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 ...
The philosopher Bryan Magee considered Popper's criticisms of logical positivism "devastating". In his view, Popper's most important argument against logical positivism is that, while it claimed to be a scientific theory of the world, its central tenet, the verification principle, effectively destroyed all of science. [8]
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.
Philosophy of conspiracy theories is the academic study by philosophers of the phenomenon and history of conspiracy theories.A conspiracy theory has been defined as an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation, [1] [2] or more narrowly a conspiracy where other explanations are more probable.
Bold hypothesis or bold conjecture is a concept in the philosophy of science of Karl Popper, first explained in his debut The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1935) and subsequently elaborated in writings such as Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (1963).
This allows anyone to decide whether a theory can be supported or refuted by data. However, the interpretation of experimental data may be also inconclusive or uncertain. Karl Popper introduced the concept that scientific knowledge had the property of falsifiability as published in The Logic of Scientific Discovery. [2]
The rational motivation for choosing a well-corroborated theory is that it is simply easier to falsify: Well-corroborated means that at least one kind of experiment (already conducted at least once) could have falsified (but did not actually falsify) the one theory, while the same kind of experiment, regardless of its outcome, could not have ...