Excellent video, I like what Tim Minchin said: "Science adjusts it's views based on what is observed, ..faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved".
Karl Popper gives us a satisfying way to make sense of the world, and it feels like most philosophers seem to lead us down intellectual dead ends because of their all or nothing ways of getting to truth. The enlightenment actually started with Popper, yes If you look through history, it appears progress is like a pendulum. One group comes up with a good idea, and they forge ahead. They run into problems, and dissent occurs. Another group pops up, and the cycle continues. Whether falsificationism is sufficient I do not know, but the trial-and-error methodology is a necessary one indeed
Amazing 8).. 5 stars, I'm really enjoying this lecture series, because I've heard a lot of the material before, but not heard a proper explanation of the details. Thanks and kudos for being one of the atheist channels that veered of atheism and is doing something much more productive and useful after the great divide 8)
I read everything Popper had written at the time 40 years ago. I couldn't put it down. No other thinker came close. But I found his epistemology a lot simpler than your podcast. We start with a problem and then follow the sequence P1-TS-EE-P2 and repeat. Where P1 is the starting problem, TS is trial solution, EE is error elimination and P2 is your new and better understanding of the problem. The problem comes first. The theory or tentative solution comes second. Today we wouldn't ask "where did your theory come from?" but only "how can we test it?". "Objective Knowledge" (1972) takes his epistemology forward with Tarski's logical proof of truth (correspondence with the facts) and World 3. The challenges today are to come up with World 4 and to demonstrate that parliamentary democracy is the post Kant solution to the value problem. I would like to make TS on both problems if anyone would like to ask.
Brilliant lectures and just what I need to hear right now... assignment looming on this very topic!! Is the narrator Lawrence Krausse? It sure sounds like him.
A friend of mine sent me a link to the introduction. I read it, sounds good. I'll probably read a review of the whole thing before deciding if I want to pick up a copy.
Great series! This is a wonderful introduction to the ideas of the philosophy of science. I would say that the innate instincts, such as hunger, and our senses are the result of millions of years of evolution and that that represents their foundation in reality. We aren't just floundering around, we're literally standing on the shoulders of those who went before, even though some of them, far from being giants, were actually microscopic. Nice duck/rabbit, reminiscent of the crocaduck...
I thought it is a fallacy in poker game but it could also work in basketball. Yes the argumentation of a hot hand fallacy would even contradict the data. Supposed that we hadn't other data about basketball than just one game and someone comitts this fallacy. In this case the fallacist wouldn't ignore data from other games. Would there be any difference between his reasoning and induction?
Yes, that's a fair point, I guess it depends on your definition of faith, I'm sure he meant faith in terms of religious dogma that kept science down for hundreds of years, but yes, I take your point.
SisyphusRedeemed i have sent you you my email address. hadimeshgi@gmail.com. I do appreciate if you send me lecture 6 slides. Thank you so much, your lectures are just awesome! I have not seen or read anything that explained the philosophy so fluently .
(cont'd) (2) As Popper says, the "idea" that there's life somewhere in the universe isn't without value. It's an interesting one to ponder. It may very well be a true one, but "somewhere in the universe" isn't a sample size that science can handle meaningfully in conducting that investigation. In respect to the example you gave about the sun -- that it is large and distant, well, that is simply part of the larger heliocentric theory which has been revised over the years.
In response to the above, I would say that the statement, "There is life in the universe beyond earth" isn't a scientific theory because it is altogether too broad. Once can set up a program to the test the theory "There is or was life on Mars -- or Europa, or a given comet, or the building blocks of life on a planet around a distant star. Those are specific scientific theories because you can conduct them and get a result.
(cont'd) (3) Of course the fact that Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are incompatible also tells us that one or both must be incorrect in some fundamental way, even though they are both among the most highly tested theories we have. So even though we continue to use both of them (just as we use Newton's math) we also know that at some one or both are bound to be supplanted by something else.
Likewise we may invent a 'planet vulcan' in the meantime but its not the case that such ad-hoc conjectures are taken too seriously. Currently there are some ad-hoc theories to an extent, however the alternative is disregarding all knowledge (which is erroneous- we don't know /where/ the falsification lies, but something is falsified) which wouldn't be a sane thing to do without a better alternative in place! Some food for thought: the proposal of Vulcan didn't necessarily pass logical consistency of theory, did it? With more accurate modelling they may have acertained that space-time dilation has different properties to the orbital characteristics of planets.
(con'td) (3) For instance, it was once thought that gravity propagated instantly but that was later revised, with the advent of Einstein, and we now understand that gravity can't move faster than the speed of light. In fact, all of Newtonian physics, even though everybody uses it because the math is easier, has really been supplanted by Einsteinian physics. They both yield identical answers except at velocities close to the speed of light,
That's not really how it works. It's a question of accuracy. It depends on if your margin of error is greater than the difference between the theories to determine whether or not you can use a Newtonian approximation or not. Also, Newtonian and Einsteinian do NOT yield identical results unless there is no motion involved. It's true that the difference is negligible unless the velocities are great enough.
Through induction one cannot prove a result gained through deduction whereas deduction will allow us to see prospective inductive interpretations as more or less valid.
"faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved". I love Minchin, but I don't know that this is fair. It's certainly true about SOME versions of faith, but I don't think it's true of all.
You mean from basketball? Yeah, that seems like an induction, but a particularly bad one, since the actual data doesn't support it. If induction is fallacious, there are two fallacies going on there.
14:37...then how does an infant ever come to navigate the world without destroying itself? At what point can a human being even begin to start forming hypotheses if it was not first fueled by observations in infancy?
In fact Columbus was trying to find China (the silk road was blocked), he borrowed money from Spanish queen, carried a letter written by the queen for mongolian emperor (though mongolian empire died 200 years ago lol) found a piece of land, thought that was china, however he saw the people living here was naked, thought that is barbarian not china is must be japan (no offense), then he kept sailing and thought as he heared JP cannot be that big then it must be India. Then he logically concluded, base on abduction, that is india. Therefore, he started calling them, indian. lol
Beautiful, open mind was the goal of popper, think out of the box, truth borns where dogma dies, progress is the result exploring with an open minded, all of that makes life interesting, on the other hand, religion dogmas, politic dogmas, scientific dogmas, and any kind of dogmatic thinking throw human intellect backwards.
I love these vids. You're much better at explaining the ideas than most books and lectures in my experience.
Excellent video, I like what Tim Minchin said: "Science adjusts it's views based on what is observed, ..faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved".
Hey man, your videos make me realize I don't know as much as I would like...but I'm getting better! Thanks!
Karl Popper gives us a satisfying way to make sense of the world, and it feels like most philosophers seem to lead us down intellectual dead ends because of their all or nothing ways of getting to truth. The enlightenment actually started with Popper, yes
If you look through history, it appears progress is like a pendulum. One group comes up with a good idea, and they forge ahead. They run into problems, and dissent occurs. Another group pops up, and the cycle continues. Whether falsificationism is sufficient I do not know, but the trial-and-error methodology is a necessary one indeed
bestest vedio for complex topics thanku sooo much SIR❤
Amazing 8).. 5 stars, I'm really enjoying this lecture series, because I've heard a lot of the material before, but not heard a proper explanation of the details.
Thanks and kudos for being one of the atheist channels that veered of atheism and is doing something much more productive and useful after the great divide 8)
Brilliant - been discussing the old hard problem recently - thanks.
I read everything Popper had written at the time 40 years ago. I couldn't put it down. No other thinker came close.
But I found his epistemology a lot simpler than your podcast.
We start with a problem and then follow the sequence P1-TS-EE-P2 and repeat. Where P1 is the starting problem, TS is trial solution, EE is error elimination and P2 is your new and better understanding of the problem.
The problem comes first. The theory or tentative solution comes second.
Today we wouldn't ask "where did your theory come from?" but only "how can we test it?".
"Objective Knowledge" (1972) takes his epistemology forward with Tarski's logical proof of truth (correspondence with the facts) and World 3.
The challenges today are to come up with World 4 and to demonstrate that parliamentary democracy is the post Kant solution to the value problem.
I would like to make TS on both problems if anyone would like to ask.
Why the need for a world 4?
Brilliant lectures and just what I need to hear right now... assignment looming on this very topic!! Is the narrator Lawrence Krausse? It sure sounds like him.
Thank you, very kind. But no, I am not Lawrence Krauss. My name is Garret Merriam, I teach philosophy at the University of Southern Indiana.
A friend of mine sent me a link to the introduction. I read it, sounds good. I'll probably read a review of the whole thing before deciding if I want to pick up a copy.
Thank you for saying so. That's a real compliment in this area.
Great series! This is a wonderful introduction to the ideas of the philosophy of science.
I would say that the innate instincts, such as hunger, and our senses are the result of millions of years of evolution and that that represents their foundation in reality. We aren't just floundering around, we're literally standing on the shoulders of those who went before, even though some of them, far from being giants, were actually microscopic.
Nice duck/rabbit, reminiscent of the crocaduck...
Wohoo this made my day (night). Thank you!
I thought it is a fallacy in poker game but it could also work in basketball.
Yes the argumentation of a hot hand fallacy would even contradict the data.
Supposed that we hadn't other data about basketball than just one game and someone comitts this fallacy. In this case the fallacist wouldn't ignore data from other games. Would there be any difference between his reasoning and induction?
is there a link between induction and hot hand fallacy?
I can have all of the slides of your presentations? do you have a website of blog where can I download them? I am planning to watch them all, thanks
+Dilshad Moses
You could watch the video here.
Yes, that's a fair point, I guess it depends on your definition of faith, I'm sure he meant faith in terms of religious dogma that kept science down for hundreds of years, but yes, I take your point.
Hi, i was wondering if there is any way to have the slides.
PM me with your email address, let me know which slides you want and I'll send them your way.
SisyphusRedeemed i have sent you you my email address.
hadimeshgi@gmail.com. I do appreciate if you send me lecture 6 slides.
Thank you so much, your lectures are just awesome! I have not seen or read anything that explained the philosophy so fluently .
(cont'd) (2)
As Popper says, the "idea" that there's life somewhere in the universe isn't without value. It's an interesting one to ponder. It may very well be a true one, but "somewhere in the universe" isn't a sample size that science can handle meaningfully in conducting that investigation.
In respect to the example you gave about the sun -- that it is large and distant, well, that is simply part of the larger heliocentric theory which has been revised over the years.
I have a question about Popper's philosophy: do you think his definition of ontological truth is still accepted, or generally rejected?
In response to the above, I would say that the statement, "There is life in the universe beyond earth" isn't a scientific theory because it is altogether too broad. Once can set up a program to the test the theory "There is or was life on Mars -- or Europa, or a given comet, or the building blocks of life on a planet around a distant star.
Those are specific scientific theories because you can conduct them and get a result.
(cont'd) (3)
Of course the fact that Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are incompatible also tells us that one or both must be incorrect in some fundamental way, even though they are both among the most highly tested theories we have.
So even though we continue to use both of them (just as we use Newton's math) we also know that at some one or both are bound to be supplanted by something else.
Likewise we may invent a 'planet vulcan' in the meantime but its not the case that such ad-hoc conjectures are taken too seriously. Currently there are some ad-hoc theories to an extent, however the alternative is disregarding all knowledge (which is erroneous- we don't know /where/ the falsification lies, but something is falsified) which wouldn't be a sane thing to do without a better alternative in place!
Some food for thought: the proposal of Vulcan didn't necessarily pass logical consistency of theory, did it? With more accurate modelling they may have acertained that space-time dilation has different properties to the orbital characteristics of planets.
Can I download these lectures?
yay, new content!
Very good.
(con'td) (3) For instance, it was once thought that gravity propagated instantly but that was later revised, with the advent of Einstein, and we now understand that gravity can't move faster than the speed of light.
In fact, all of Newtonian physics, even though everybody uses it because the math is easier, has really been supplanted by Einsteinian physics. They both yield identical answers except at velocities close to the speed of light,
That's not really how it works. It's a question of accuracy. It depends on if your margin of error is greater than the difference between the theories to determine whether or not you can use a Newtonian approximation or not.
Also, Newtonian and Einsteinian do NOT yield identical results unless there is no motion involved. It's true that the difference is negligible unless the velocities are great enough.
Through induction one cannot prove a result gained through deduction whereas deduction will allow us to see prospective inductive interpretations as more or less valid.
induction is /very/ important for developing hypotheses but not inherently going to determine whether a theory is wrong.
That was amazing.
"faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved".
I love Minchin, but I don't know that this is fair. It's certainly true about SOME versions of faith, but I don't think it's true of all.
You mean from basketball? Yeah, that seems like an induction, but a particularly bad one, since the actual data doesn't support it. If induction is fallacious, there are two fallacies going on there.
14:37...then how does an infant ever come to navigate the world without destroying itself? At what point can a human being even begin to start forming hypotheses if it was not first fueled by observations in infancy?
In fact Columbus was trying to find China (the silk road was blocked), he borrowed money from Spanish queen, carried a letter written by the queen for mongolian emperor (though mongolian empire died 200 years ago lol) found a piece of land, thought that was china, however he saw the people living here was naked, thought that is barbarian not china is must be japan (no offense), then he kept sailing and thought as he heared JP cannot be that big then it must be India. Then he logically concluded, base on abduction, that is india. Therefore, he started calling them, indian. lol
Beautiful, open mind was the goal of popper, think out of the box, truth borns where dogma dies, progress is the result exploring with an open minded, all of that makes life interesting, on the other hand, religion dogmas, politic dogmas, scientific dogmas, and any kind of dogmatic thinking throw human intellect backwards.
I guess that's why people study at universities ;)
or Karl Popper's Penguins?
Okay, now I'm 10 seconds further into the video..........lol
The baby crying example does not follow. i.e. it just as easy could be the expectation learnt thing.
karl popper's jalapeño poppers lol
Geography be damned! LOL