Thank you Professor Sanders for these lectures. Brings me back to my college days. I think I get it. Eddington's experiment did not prove Einstein. However it could have disproved it. Because it did not and at the same time disproved the Newtonian view it is a "better" explanation.
Nature is strange, I have observed moving stars during an eclipse. I couldn't understand why they were showing up in my pictures until the eclipse was underway and the sky was black. They helped me align my camera to photograph the eclipse, it was difficult to get a pic of it while they were moving.
Problem is that you can make the same argument for the crazy duck theories, too. You might've made the argument valid by expressing it as modus ponens, but it's still not sound
I thought psychoanalysis n marxist in popper sense it's uncritical, n never try reject theory in their practice. But they can be science if it's really try it.
Thank you Professor Sanders for these lectures. Brings me back to my college days. I think I get it. Eddington's experiment did not prove Einstein. However it could have disproved it. Because it did not and at the same time disproved the Newtonian view it is a "better" explanation.
Nature is strange, I have observed moving stars during an eclipse. I couldn't understand why they were showing up in my pictures until the eclipse was underway and the sky was black. They helped me align my camera to photograph the eclipse, it was difficult to get a pic of it while they were moving.
if the stars appear to move then gtr is true
the stars appear to move...
gtr is true
this fixes the logical fallacy. what am i missing?
Problem is that you can make the same argument for the crazy duck theories, too. You might've made the argument valid by expressing it as modus ponens, but it's still not sound
36:00
THANKS BUDDY
I thought psychoanalysis n marxist in popper sense it's uncritical, n never try reject theory in their practice. But they can be science if it's really try it.