Karl Popper, Science, & Pseudoscience: Crash Course Philosophy #8
video description
Date: 2022-04-04
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
Aee
Science avoids right and truth and avoids the left and wrong too, science chases the better prediction to reality. any Who declares a theory is right, and declares other-s left is just for maintaining own right is the virus to the science, not only this, is also can be the virus for non-scientist. right is also the weapon that criminal wants, also any who wants do this violence that belongs to criminal who wants this harmful weapon, the right and authority. Just like immoral criminal wants and designs nuclear bomb. Hitler declares rights, Stalin declares rights. Who did this is for creating harmful weapon, the authority that who could use it to murder and harm others then the criminal who chases the rights can filling up own selfish willing and wants. The authority is also the harmful weapon that the virus people as Hitler and Stalin wants, and science defeats authority, so this is also the reason that why science has been hated, because science will destroy their selfish dreams.
reply
Science avoids right and truth and avoids the left and wrong too, science chases the better prediction to reality. any Who declares a theory is right, and declares other-s left is just for maintaining own right is the virus to the science, not only this, is also can be the virus for non-scientist. right is also the weapon that criminal wants, also any who wants do this violence that belongs to criminal who wants this harmful weapon, the right and authority. Just like immoral criminal wants and designs nuclear bomb. Hitler declares rights, Stalin declares rights. Who did this is for creating harmful weapon, the authority that who could use it to murder and harm others then the criminal who chases the rights can filling up own selfish willing and wants. The authority is also the harmful weapon that the virus people as Hitler and Stalin wants, and science defeats authority, so this is also the reason that why science has been hated, because science will destroy their selfish dreams.
reply
Norman
In the scientific context, -be ready to give up your beliefs- has to be seen from a social perspective and not from an individual one. It's science that gives up the false belief, not necessarily an individual. We know of many cases where individual scientists cling to their theories long after the evidence has overwhelmingly falsified them. One example would be Fred Hoyle, whom I met; he continued to cling to the Steady State theory long after the evidence had shown it to be untenable. Hoyle's rationalisations to save the phenomena became more and more outlandish. But it doesn't matter if scientist A continues to hold to his (mistaken) conviction, as long as enough other scientists reject it and seek alternatives. This highlights a vital aspect of science, namely the danger of consensus. Consensus is death to science; diversity is of the essence.
reply
In the scientific context, -be ready to give up your beliefs- has to be seen from a social perspective and not from an individual one. It's science that gives up the false belief, not necessarily an individual. We know of many cases where individual scientists cling to their theories long after the evidence has overwhelmingly falsified them. One example would be Fred Hoyle, whom I met; he continued to cling to the Steady State theory long after the evidence had shown it to be untenable. Hoyle's rationalisations to save the phenomena became more and more outlandish. But it doesn't matter if scientist A continues to hold to his (mistaken) conviction, as long as enough other scientists reject it and seek alternatives. This highlights a vital aspect of science, namely the danger of consensus. Consensus is death to science; diversity is of the essence.
reply
Luc
Hum, Popper didn't call psychology pseudoscience, he called _psychoanalysis_ pseudoscience. And great numbers of scientists and philosophers do agree with him. Even after all these years, psychoanalysis fails on critical features:
- Falsifiability
- Experimental control
- Replication (which coupled with the above, raises questions of _actual_ testability)
- Abductively validating hypotheses through backward chain inferences
- Having the property of being -hard to vary- (i. e. not being able to change details in the theory to keep it working when falsified, since this would be ad hoc reasoning.
That's just too much epistemic failures for psychoanalysis theory to be a scientific theory. Therefore, it _is_ unscientific.
reply
Hum, Popper didn't call psychology pseudoscience, he called _psychoanalysis_ pseudoscience. And great numbers of scientists and philosophers do agree with him. Even after all these years, psychoanalysis fails on critical features:
- Falsifiability
- Experimental control
- Replication (which coupled with the above, raises questions of _actual_ testability)
- Abductively validating hypotheses through backward chain inferences
- Having the property of being -hard to vary- (i. e. not being able to change details in the theory to keep it working when falsified, since this would be ad hoc reasoning.
That's just too much epistemic failures for psychoanalysis theory to be a scientific theory. Therefore, it _is_ unscientific.
reply
OHM-968692
Wait Popper was right? Seems like his methods, at least as explained in the video, might be useful for everyday investigation, but not for actual science. A stack of gifts doesn't prove the existence of Santa Clause. Seeing your dad dressed up as Santa putting those gifts under a tree doesn't disprove Santa either. I believe modern science works slightly differently. A bad example was used here. and perhaps a slightly wrong conclusion was reached. Einstein's work - predicting the solar eclipse thing - is much closer to it. Having someone else try to disprove your hypothesis helps too.
reply
Wait Popper was right? Seems like his methods, at least as explained in the video, might be useful for everyday investigation, but not for actual science. A stack of gifts doesn't prove the existence of Santa Clause. Seeing your dad dressed up as Santa putting those gifts under a tree doesn't disprove Santa either. I believe modern science works slightly differently. A bad example was used here. and perhaps a slightly wrong conclusion was reached. Einstein's work - predicting the solar eclipse thing - is much closer to it. Having someone else try to disprove your hypothesis helps too.
reply
KingCeasar666
So am I right to say arhiests in the scientific community are not really arhiests. To say they do something like I do in thiesm to avoid religios debate where I embrace it providing them the perfect angle of observation.
With most scientific leaders and pages this question is sensetive but usually results in the athiest running away or redirecting the debate as we both play on the same rule of 1 to 1 in the discussion.
The Canadian 1 to 1 social grid insurance that means no voice gets beyond the discussion
reply
So am I right to say arhiests in the scientific community are not really arhiests. To say they do something like I do in thiesm to avoid religios debate where I embrace it providing them the perfect angle of observation.
With most scientific leaders and pages this question is sensetive but usually results in the athiest running away or redirecting the debate as we both play on the same rule of 1 to 1 in the discussion.
The Canadian 1 to 1 social grid insurance that means no voice gets beyond the discussion
reply
PTCello
I appreciate this, and I don-t have any disagreement. But God is beyond proof. That is by definition. If we can prove a thing it is not God, because God is beyond proof. It-s not a circular argument, or perhaps it is, but it is true. God can-t be proven or disproven you can only accept Him on a philosophical basis, or not. They are 3000 comments here, so I-m sure that multiple people have already addressed what I have just said.
reply
I appreciate this, and I don-t have any disagreement. But God is beyond proof. That is by definition. If we can prove a thing it is not God, because God is beyond proof. It-s not a circular argument, or perhaps it is, but it is true. God can-t be proven or disproven you can only accept Him on a philosophical basis, or not. They are 3000 comments here, so I-m sure that multiple people have already addressed what I have just said.
reply
Dear
When you head on in to your first Phil. course your instructor is going to play the role of each (given time) 'method' of truth,
and then tear each of them all up to little pieces. There isn't going to be 'truth' anywhere to be found.
You're going to more screwed-up
when you leave,
then when you went in;
and you've just begun.
Now you chase sanity.
reply
When you head on in to your first Phil. course your instructor is going to play the role of each (given time) 'method' of truth,
and then tear each of them all up to little pieces. There isn't going to be 'truth' anywhere to be found.
You're going to more screwed-up
when you leave,
then when you went in;
and you've just begun.
Now you chase sanity.
reply
Aldrin
I'm not sure why, but this entire episode made me so incredibly happy! While I'm sure I'm not the only one, I feel like I've come to the conclusions and thought experiments that a lot of these old philosophers did on my own. But there have been so many light bulbs going off in my head during this series!
reply
I'm not sure why, but this entire episode made me so incredibly happy! While I'm sure I'm not the only one, I feel like I've come to the conclusions and thought experiments that a lot of these old philosophers did on my own. But there have been so many light bulbs going off in my head during this series!
reply
Mohamed
lol witnessing sigmund and freud? Really buddy? You think they were really the first people to think about nature vs. nurture? Uh, what exactly did they contribute to anything? Psychology was used to abuse/kill people then and still now.
reply
lol witnessing sigmund and freud? Really buddy? You think they were really the first people to think about nature vs. nurture? Uh, what exactly did they contribute to anything? Psychology was used to abuse/kill people then and still now.
reply
Daniel
4: 02 I know that he mentioned Santa as an example but it's not very ilustrative. He should've use something that we actually believed was true at some point in history (with -evidence- and all that) but that nowadays is disproven.
reply
4: 02 I know that he mentioned Santa as an example but it's not very ilustrative. He should've use something that we actually believed was true at some point in history (with -evidence- and all that) but that nowadays is disproven.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
