Karl Popper on Falsification & Science (1989)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 тра 2023
- A clip Karl Popper in an interview discussing falsification and criticism as the most important elements in science given that we cannot ever prove theories true (due to the issue of induction).
#Philosophy #Popper #Epistemology
![My Grandfather Met Napoleon: Bertrand Russell Interview 1952 - Enhanced Video & Audio [60 fps]](/img/n.gif)
Popper has lots of great ideas in this documentary that apply to science and human reasoning:
1. What are the weaknesses and errors in our thinking, ideas and hypotheses?
2. Do the ideas in our views contradict each other?
3. Is there a logical connection to the ideas in our views or hypotheses?
4. Eliminate and refuting errors in our thinking.
5. Through these processes, how can we get closer to the truth.
very well, i understood him better by read David deusth, beginning of infinity better articulate in my view. you would Thanks me after reading.
@@rootsquare7907 this killer of stupidity I was looking for
There's something really soothing about the way he speaks
Dude that's why I listen to this stuff. Philosophy hurts my head but I really like Karl Popper's ramblings :). Same thing for Jacques Pépin, I love his cooking videos.
He certainly disliked Freudian psychoanalysis.
Marxism too. But now people think his ideas are "too strict" (ironically), and focus on "predictability" instead of falsification. Though even predictability is coming under scrutiny now. So who knows.
@@johnmanno2052He looked for "explanation" not for "predictability."
@@merikaramocan6774 I know. Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear. I meant to say that people nowadays think Popper was too strict, and they (not Popper, but scientists) focus on what they call "predictability" instead of falsifiability. However, even "predictability" is coming under scrutiny, and people are moving towards yet other ideas about what makes "science" really "science".
Falsifying the truth as revealed in dreams is not possible.
@@bbyng7316 But it's you who say's it's truth.
Fun fact: this was filmed one year after Popper received the Premio Internazionale of the Italian Federico Nietzsche Society, in 1988. Popper was the youngest philosopher ever to receive the award. He was only 36 years old.
He is clearly much older than 36 in this video. Perhaps I am missing something: can you please explain?
@@omarmirza9957 Look man, that's how things were back then. Lead in the gasoline. Cigarette smoke in the air. It can age the best of us.
Why is this so funny
@@robotnik44 😏
good one
What is the difference between induction and deduction?
I believe that deduction means that if you have 2 true premises that your conclusion must be true.
And induction means that you use information from the past and now to predict the future.
Both are a form of reasoning.
@@Mni00yaa you are correct!
@@kevinnndon Thanks, I appreciate it!
Both are applications of logical inference.
Deductive inference is when you reason from a general principle to derive a specific effect. It's used extensively in mathematics.
Inductive inference is when you take a set of SPECIFIC observations and try to come up with a GENERAL rule that accounts for them. It's the basis of the scientific method.
Mathematics and other formal systems operate deductively. The system is built from a set of given axioms and can then be used to extend itself by means of theorems and proofs. The system can then apply its GENERAL rules to solve SPECIFIC problems, such as determining whether √2 is irrational.
What's significant about deduction is that it's COMPLETE. A proof that √2 is irrational is true not just in this universe but in all possible universes. That's because it's not really about the universe.
Science operates inductively. It looks for patterns in data and tries to determine how those patterns come about. It uses SPECIFIC evidence to infer a GENERAL rule.
What's significant about induction is that it's always tentative, always INCOMPLETE. New or more precise data could invalidate a prevailing theory. If you've only ever seen white swans, you might tentatively hypothesize that there only are white swans. But it's a big universe. All it takes is one black swan to falsify your hypothesis. And so falsification turns out to be more powerful than verification.
Please help this audio out. Popper already has a thick accent. Making him sound like he's talking into a barrel is just painful. The base needs to be attenuated enormously!
The Orb brought me here
Wait till they discover that Hebrew Cosmology is true too. It was good enough for Moses and the scientific method.
Religion is garbage and antithetical to the scientific method. Stop being a slave.
"Hebrew cosmology" is the very antithesis of the scientific method. Lay down the crack pipe mate
yes in a way, so you need to understand theory is, Theory is basically an explanation. our aim in theory is to correct errors and come with better explanation, you can say we going closer to reality by just discarding all wrong answer which we know for sure. example: the great one example is newton was over seeded by einstein and one day Einstein will be and that's what we aspire to find even better explanation, thats how knowledge grows.
this j ruined society
This old man brings up a beetle as an example for the falsification of science. How drab
There are more spices of beetle than any other named category of animal. If you knew anything about the diversity of beetles you might think differently.
@@scotimages Ok beetle man
at least the beetle isnt in a box
This 'old man' was one of the greatest thinkers of the 20th Century.
@@alexplotkin3368 If you cant detect a joke, I doubt you can detect the greatest thinker of the 20th century