Philosophy of Science I

A 5-minute introduction to what philosophy of science is all about.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• philosophy
• of
• science
• Popper
• Hume
• Duhem
• falsificationism
• induction

[MassimoPigliucci]

You seem to confuse non-rational with irrational, not the same thing.

[2bsirius]

YouTube needs much more of this, and much less knee jerk pontificating which is a thin veil on pseudo-science.

EXCELLENT!!!!

[dbes02]

...but the ongoing, unabated success of science makes atheism the rational position to take.

[exmuslimNfree]

brilliant video

[1tabligh]

@eblonk10 The atheist Delusion!

How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?

[eblonk10]

@1tabligh Three logic fallacies. 1 - special pleading by exempting the existence of God from the burden of proof. 2 - Strawman: an atheist may state God doesn't exist but, like me, may also state there is not sufficient proof, especially in relation to the weight of the impact if its existence. 3 - Shifting the burden of proof: the person that state that there is a God has to proof it and cannot demand it being disproved first instead.

Your argument is invalid.

[Estoppel7]

OMG, "Discovery as the ability to come up with new ideas being a non-rational process" is absurd. Maybe he's speaking loosley here, for non-rational is a strict contradiction of rational, and implies not only the absense of reason in our push to discover, but the complete negation or absense of it. So, let's assume he didn't mean this, and simply meant that it was not our rational capabilites themselves that direct our drive to discover. This, too, is troublesome: reason could direct discovery

[rh001YT]

Yes, the swan example was offered for it's simplicity, but it's too simple. Science does not just make claims about attributes, it goes on to explain why. It is the "why" that is crucial. So a scientist would explain why a swan has this or that color. then "why" is put that "why" and infinite regress begins. The regress is usually stopped arbitrarily for utilitarian reasons. Or in some cases not stop, but again for untilitarian reasons - funding has to be approved - a practical goal is sought.

[1tabligh]

The atheist Delusion!

Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.

Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.

[AlainG80]

Excellent, every premodernist i.e. creationist/austrian economist etc. should learn this!

[zenmind42]

What a shame that the images chosen exude such a strong bias against women. (And I'm not merely referring to the lack of images and/or mention of examples using female scientists and/or philosophers. The phrase "it works, bitches", and the profile of what is presumably intended to be a paradigm male philosophy smoking a pipe, are both utterly unnecessary.)

[TZMrazvitie]

cool