Thanks I really enjoyed the simplicity and pragmatism of this video! A great overview that invites many doors to be opened! So much for my early night tonight :)
Great video! Is modern day scientism as expressed by Hawking when he said “philosophy is dead” in anyway connected to logical positivism? Are there similarities or only differences?
Dear Mark, There is an excellent CZcams presentation on epistemology by Lulie Tanett. Basically we stand on the shoulders of giants and see further and Lulie explains where we are today.
Abductive reasoning (also called abduction, abductive inference or retroduction) is a form of logical inference which goes from an observation to a theory which accounts for the observation, ideally seeking to find the simplest and most likely explanation.
I can't understand why russians don't make such short and capacious videoes. I can find nothing less then hour and a half. My teacher doesn't know English and I can't show her this video, but it's amazing! Thank you!
On reductionism and holism: a hypothesis needs to make sense from ALL observations and from ALL possible perspectives and hence a hypothesis needs to make sense from BOTH reductionist perspectives and holistic perspectives. The problem we humans have is that reductionism constantly sucks us into assumptions after which the holistic perspective does not make sense anymore and we reject it. Our human thinking is biased, that is how our thinking works.
+mentalphysicalism Galileo galilei was the first laid the foundation of modern science the video speak about philosophy of science so bacon was really the first modern science philosophy that's of course does not reduce the value of the uk scientists or even its role in the history of the world modern science
No man is an island, the same is true for science. And apart from the interconnected structure of the history of knowledge and science, science doesn´t treat questions about ultimate ends and ultimate beginnings.
Have you applied this reasoning to the question of the shape and nature of the earth. Can you personally falsify by scientific method that the earth is not stationary and flat?
+Uncle Theodor Feyman once said somthing along the lines of scientists have as much interest in philosphers of science as birds have in ornithologists :-)
Mark Pallen I like that. I suppose the POS have their reasons. but, I find their efforts such a waste. Analytical philosophers (logicians) aren't much better. When one thinks of philo, one usually thinks of moral philosophy, which makes more sense.
Boring speaking. Should speak it more clearly. Why do you low down the voice in the ending of few sentences? Seems like you are not sure what you really talk about?
The ending of this is kind of... well, garbage in my opinion. Most science is wrong, bye. Like chill out. How are you making this video if not for science? Didn't you just talk about how science constantly tries to prove itself wrong? You didn't even have the whole psychology discussion. Are those sciences actually science? What are the problems with science that can or can't be fixed? Geez. I imagine I could say that same thing a million times over for philosophy. Every paper you read is wrong. Does that mean that it's useless? It's only if you accept a scientific finding in an unscientific way (the field never verifies it)-- then it's useless. I love philosophy, but I dislike the animosity towards empiricism. Sure, they get the funding, departments, and chairs while we don't-- and they often question only the surface level assumptions instead of the deep rooted dogma of induction, etc. But there's still no need for the shade.
I learnt more about science in 20 mins then all my life. - very good presentation.
To not make any claim which is not verifiable is nearly a complete piece of a philosophy for living. Great presentation!
Thanks for your talk! I'm a first year postgrad science student and this was a very helpful introduction to these higher-order ideas.
I learnt more from this than I did from 7 lectures in University!! Thank You.
According to Godfrey-Smith, the verification principle was intended as a way to test statements, not necessarily verify them.
Omg when you need to go on CZcams to learn more then in class loool thank you so much.
Thanks I really enjoyed the simplicity and pragmatism of this video! A great overview that invites many doors to be opened! So much for my early night tonight :)
Great video! Is modern day scientism as expressed by Hawking when he said “philosophy is dead” in anyway connected to logical positivism? Are there similarities or only differences?
Best video I have come across which explains their given topic in a precise, digestible and user-friendly method. Much kudos to you sir!
Dear Mark, There is an excellent CZcams presentation on epistemology by Lulie Tanett. Basically we stand on the shoulders of giants and see further and Lulie explains where we are today.
thank you for the explanation Dr. Pallen
Really good, short and sweet summary.
Thnx for valuable knowledge
Abductive reasoning (also called abduction, abductive inference or retroduction)
is a form of logical inference which goes from an observation to a
theory which accounts for the observation, ideally seeking to find the
simplest and most likely explanation.
Clear and concise
Thank you
Great video. Thank you.
מהי הפילוסופיה של המדע, והאם היא בהתחלה אמורה לתת לנו נוסחא איך לעשות את המדע או פשוט מציגה לנו את הסתכלות השונה של החוקרים/האנשים על דברים
I can't understand why russians don't make such short and capacious videoes. I can find nothing less then hour and a half. My teacher doesn't know English and I can't show her this video, but it's amazing! Thank you!
Honestly, I admire this in Russians. They know how important each detail is important in knowledge.
6:10 using copper as an inductive logic example was a confusing choice
On reductionism and holism: a hypothesis needs to make sense from ALL observations and from ALL possible perspectives and hence a hypothesis needs to make sense from BOTH reductionist perspectives and holistic perspectives. The problem we humans have is that reductionism constantly sucks us into assumptions after which the holistic perspective does not make sense anymore and we reject it. Our human thinking is biased, that is how our thinking works.
Inductively from experience
correction - 19 minutes
'the structure of scientific revolutions'
the "deductive" argument you present is an inductive argument
yes, i was so confused and immediately googled if what he said was right and what i thought all along was wrong
@@kamalpreetkaur6276 Do you mean the "all A's are B's" one? If so why is it inductive? Seems deductive to me
2021
How do you know all A are B?
Most slides contain extreme/debatable views e.g. scientific realism
This guy just boldly declared that science is started in the UK. for him everything is started in the uk
Sir Isaak Newton
+mentalphysicalism Galileo galilei was the first laid the foundation of modern science
the video speak about philosophy of science so bacon was really the first modern science philosophy that's of course does not reduce the value of the uk scientists or even its role in the history of the world modern science
+Abu Ziyan El Moravid Got a citation on the 'science originated in Egypt' notion?
No man is an island, the same is true for science. And apart from the interconnected structure of the history of knowledge and science, science doesn´t treat questions about ultimate ends and ultimate beginnings.
Gravity is magic
But language and knowledge on its own is limited, so how it can attempt do define the unlimited
Have you applied this reasoning to the question of the shape and nature of the earth. Can you personally falsify by scientific method that the earth is not stationary and flat?
Uhhh, the people on the space station watch the earth revolve all the time. There's probably even a live feed of it somewhere. Are you a conspiritard?
But isn't math and logic just figments of the imagination also, so what truth can be found?
I'm referring to the last thing this gentleman says in the vid.
the strange part of the PoS is that no one reads them except other PoS.
neither philosophers nor scientists care much what PoS say.
+Uncle Theodor Feyman once said somthing along the lines of scientists have as much interest in philosphers of science as birds have in ornithologists :-)
Mark Pallen I like that. I suppose the POS have their reasons. but, I find their efforts such a waste. Analytical philosophers (logicians) aren't much better. When one thinks of philo, one usually thinks of moral philosophy, which makes more sense.
@@cirosuperioreSpoken like a true engineer.
One can't discover knowledge through inductive reasoning. Science isn't knowledge.
Boring speaking. Should speak it more clearly. Why do you low down the voice in the ending of few sentences? Seems like you are not sure what you really talk about?
THANH THANG What the thinker thinks, the prover prooves
The ending of this is kind of... well, garbage in my opinion.
Most science is wrong, bye. Like chill out. How are you making this video if not for science?
Didn't you just talk about how science constantly tries to prove itself wrong? You didn't even have the whole psychology discussion. Are those sciences actually science?
What are the problems with science that can or can't be fixed?
Geez. I imagine I could say that same thing a million times over for philosophy. Every paper you read is wrong. Does that mean that it's useless?
It's only if you accept a scientific finding in an unscientific way (the field never verifies it)-- then it's useless.
I love philosophy, but I dislike the animosity towards empiricism. Sure, they get the funding, departments, and chairs while we don't-- and they often question only the surface level assumptions instead of the deep rooted dogma of induction, etc. But there's still no need for the shade.