Science and its Hypotheses (Philosophy of Science)

This is my first video in my series on the Philosophy of Science. In this short video, I discuss the importance of scientific hypotheses and how to comparatively evaluate them.

Other videos in the series include:
Parapsychology - The Pretenders of Science - http://www.youtube.com/my_videos_edit?ns=1&video_id=MIqK5WignVU

Sources:
Theodore Schick and Lewis Vaughn. "How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age." (Chapter 7 "Science and Its Pretenders")

Category:

Education

Tags:

• critical
• thinking
• philosophy
• of
• science
• atheist
• agnostic
• free
• thinker
• open
• minded
• criteria
• adequacy
• Schick
• and
• Vaughn
• Karl
• Popper
• falsifiability
• scientific
• hypothesis
• theory
• laws

[TheTruthgeneral]

It is not very wise to spend timsaying things like oh the scientific method is the best tool ever devised for inquiry.First and foremost science can be properly reduced and defined merely as any type of empirical study/measurement.Which means any deliberate process of question and answer about anything accessible by the senses done by any individual whether at a university or not, written down in " scientific journals" or not is science.So science is just the mind in action

[crazypills2]

@TheTruthgeneral "So science is just the mind in action"

I would disagree. The human mind has been in action for thousands of years and yielded very poor, inaccurate conclusions. The scientific method adds structure to ensure our conclusions are justified (criteria of adequacy) before taking them seriously.

[MJRockX]

Doing a little critical thinking here:

I would hardly say that Copernicans explanations for the motions of the planets fit well with the established beliefs at the time. Galileo was nearly put to death over it. Moreover taking into account the mathematics of the orbits of the planets as well as the moons of Jupiter seems much more complicated than a simple layering of clear bowls over the earth.

[crazypills2]

MJRockX,

Copernicus' theory definitively went against established beliefs of the time; however, were these beliefs well-established? In other words, were they justified? And, even when our beliefs are justified, new evidence can provide reason to abandon them.

Copernicus theory was much simpler, as many of the epicycles needed to explain Ptolemys theory were unnecessary with Copernicus

[dannukesem]

Interesting video.

[crazypills2]

Thanks dannukesem

[Kulgera4]

I love how these science narrations sound like they're really stoned.

[Aaberg123]

@St00sh13

Well, if you were a little less lazy, you would've checked the context of my comments and understood that the concept of solipsism was quintessential to the argument I had with FinGuy. But alas, you were simply too damn lazy, and thus it was you, not I, who wasted your own time.

Get over yourself.

[St00sh13]

@Aaberg123 So why were you even bothering to discuss the concept of an impractical and irrelevant idea in the first place? Talk about wasting people's time.

[Aaberg123]

@St00sh13

Which is a debate that is irrelevant. I wasn't arguing about the practicality, but of the concept. That's it. I even explicitly made a point of it in my last post. How hard is it to understand that I wasn't arguing about practicality, but of the concept. There is no more to this, even though you seem to insist upon making it so.

[St00sh13]

@Aaberg123 I understand your concept just fine thanks. You can believe, if you want, that the only real thing is your thoughts. It may even be true that these words are a product of your imagination. As a concept, I get it. But my answer is basically so what? even if it is true, it is utterly irrelevant even as a concept.

All your actions have the same consequences. If you jump from a plane at 35,000 feet, the reality you experience will end, whether the outside world is real or not.

[Aaberg123]

@St00sh13

Of course you'll have to assume that what your perceive as sensory input is real, because you have no other choice; but that doesn't take away from my argument that the external world is ultimately unknowable.

It not a matter of practicality, but of concept; which SuperFinGuy (and you?) simply didn't fathom.

[St00sh13]

@Aaberg123 Whether it is an illusion or not is irrelevant.

My senses tell me that I see the sun and I feel it's heat. Also, those around me tell me they see and feel it too.

Whether all of that is real or a product f my imagination does not matter. I know I exist and that my senses are real, therefore I *have* to assume that my senses are telling me the truth.

If you don't believe that leave your house by the second floor window next time you go out.