I learnt more about science in 20 mins then all my life. - very good presentation.

To not make any claim which is not verifiable is nearly a complete piece of a philosophy for living. Great presentation!

Thanks for your talk! I'm a first year postgrad science student and this was a very helpful introduction to these higher-order ideas.

I learnt more from this than I did from 7 lectures in University!! Thank You.

Omg when you need to go on KZread to learn more then in class loool thank you so much.

Dear Mark, There is an excellent KZread presentation on epistemology by Lulie Tanett. Basically we stand on the shoulders of giants and see further and Lulie explains where we are today.

According to Godfrey-Smith, the verification principle was intended as a way to test statements, not necessarily verify them.

Best video I have come across which explains their given topic in a precise, digestible and user-friendly method. Much kudos to you sir!

Thanks I really enjoyed the simplicity and pragmatism of this video! A great overview that invites many doors to be opened! So much for my early night tonight :)

Really good, short and sweet summary.

thank you for the explanation Dr. Pallen

Abductive reasoning (also called abduction, abductive inference or retroduction) is a form of logical inference which goes from an observation to a theory which accounts for the observation, ideally seeking to find the simplest and most likely explanation.

Great video! Is modern day scientism as expressed by Hawking when he said “philosophy is dead” in anyway connected to logical positivism? Are there similarities or only differences?

Clear and concise Thank you

Great video. Thank you.

Thnx for valuable knowledge

'the structure of scientific revolutions'

I can't understand why russians don't make such short and capacious videoes. I can find nothing less then hour and a half. My teacher doesn't know English and I can't show her this video, but it's amazing! Thank you!

@eberdemelos.j9770

6 ай бұрын

Honestly, I admire this in Russians. They know how important each detail is important in knowledge.

6:10 using copper as an inductive logic example was a confusing choice

Inductively from experience

מהי הפילוסופיה של המדע, והאם היא בהתחלה אמורה לתת לנו נוסחא איך לעשות את המדע או פשוט מציגה לנו את הסתכלות השונה של החוקרים/האנשים על דברים

correction - 19 minutes

the "deductive" argument you present is an inductive argument

@kamalpreetkaur6276

3 жыл бұрын

yes, i was so confused and immediately googled if what he said was right and what i thought all along was wrong

@sarahm6034

3 жыл бұрын

@@kamalpreetkaur6276 Do you mean the "all A's are B's" one? If so why is it inductive? Seems deductive to me

On reductionism and holism: a hypothesis needs to make sense from ALL observations and from ALL possible perspectives and hence a hypothesis needs to make sense from BOTH reductionist perspectives and holistic perspectives. The problem we humans have is that reductionism constantly sucks us into assumptions after which the holistic perspective does not make sense anymore and we reject it. Our human thinking is biased, that is how our thinking works.

This guy just boldly declared that science is started in the UK. for him everything is started in the uk

@the1andonlytitch

9 жыл бұрын

Sir Isaak Newton

@ozymandias2608

8 жыл бұрын

+mentalphysicalism Galileo galilei was the first laid the foundation of modern science the video speak about philosophy of science so bacon was really the first modern science philosophy that's of course does not reduce the value of the uk scientists or even its role in the history of the world modern science

@fredwelf8650

8 жыл бұрын

+Abu Ziyan El Moravid Got a citation on the 'science originated in Egypt' notion?

@ObeySilence

6 жыл бұрын

No man is an island, the same is true for science. And apart from the interconnected structure of the history of knowledge and science, science doesn´t treat questions about ultimate ends and ultimate beginnings.

2021

Gravity is magic

Most slides contain extreme/debatable views e.g. scientific realism

But language and knowledge on its own is limited, so how it can attempt do define the unlimited

Have you applied this reasoning to the question of the shape and nature of the earth. Can you personally falsify by scientific method that the earth is not stationary and flat?

@yourlogicalnightmare1014

Жыл бұрын

Uhhh, the people on the space station watch the earth revolve all the time. There's probably even a live feed of it somewhere. Are you a conspiritard?

How do you know all A are B?

@MohamedElouarda-qk6ws

6 сағат бұрын

"If all A were B". Thats to demonstrates a correct reasoning. If we supposed that all A were B. If we started with such an observation. Lets suppose what have such a situation. Then...and if x is an a. If we find ourselves in such situation. Then...If all A are B, and X is an A ..what would be the next affirmation we could deduct with certitude

But isn't math and logic just figments of the imagination also, so what truth can be found?

@amings532

3 жыл бұрын

I'm referring to the last thing this gentleman says in the vid.

One can't discover knowledge through inductive reasoning. Science isn't knowledge.

the strange part of the PoS is that no one reads them except other PoS. neither philosophers nor scientists care much what PoS say.

@pallenm

8 жыл бұрын

+Uncle Theodor Feyman once said somthing along the lines of scientists have as much interest in philosphers of science as birds have in ornithologists :-)

@cirosuperiore

8 жыл бұрын

Mark Pallen I like that. I suppose the POS have their reasons. but, I find their efforts such a waste. Analytical philosophers (logicians) aren't much better. When one thinks of philo, one usually thinks of moral philosophy, which makes more sense.

@coreygossman6243

10 ай бұрын

​@@cirosuperioreSpoken like a true engineer.

Boring speaking. Should speak it more clearly. Why do you low down the voice in the ending of few sentences? Seems like you are not sure what you really talk about?

@olegwiththeknowledge1729

4 жыл бұрын

THANH THANG What the thinker thinks, the prover prooves

The ending of this is kind of... well, garbage in my opinion. Most science is wrong, bye. Like chill out. How are you making this video if not for science? Didn't you just talk about how science constantly tries to prove itself wrong? You didn't even have the whole psychology discussion. Are those sciences actually science? What are the problems with science that can or can't be fixed? Geez. I imagine I could say that same thing a million times over for philosophy. Every paper you read is wrong. Does that mean that it's useless? It's only if you accept a scientific finding in an unscientific way (the field never verifies it)-- then it's useless. I love philosophy, but I dislike the animosity towards empiricism. Sure, they get the funding, departments, and chairs while we don't-- and they often question only the surface level assumptions instead of the deep rooted dogma of induction, etc. But there's still no need for the shade.