The more variables for which to account and the less validated the underlying theory, the more difficult replication is. Generally physics experiments are easier to control for variability than social experiments. The underlying theory allows for phenomena confirmation in ways more than just direct experiment replication. New phenomena and new methods require more skeptical approaches.
Yeah, you told me after we talked a lot about successful inductions being gerrymandered for like a week straight. I take successful replication/reproduction to be a very similar topic
Maybe we really should have built two large hadron colliders and two James Webb Space Telescopes, and had a couple of gravitational wave interferometers? I liked it much better when we could all replicate Michael Faraday's experiments at home.
A second run of the same experiment by the same researchers can be a replication. Often one finds that an earlier result does not repeat, investigation reveals the earlier result to be an artifact.
Hey, complete newbie to philosophy here, i dont quite understand the issue of point 1. The stated idea is that theories are required for definitions but isnt this what hypotheses are for? Also in general that papers generally (should?) define keywords before using them
Was wondering if you looked at string theory since your talk with your lover and that other guy. Sabine Hosenfelder's Video on string theory is pretty interesting although, i haven't the slightest background in physics. I know you don't really do interviews on here but that would be a super cool crossover to have a conversation with her. I think you both have some perspectives in common.
I read a couple of articles about the "no alternatives" argument that Brown talked about, and actually I don't think it really depends on the details of string theory. I also don't think it's anywhere near as problematic for scientific antirealism as Brown suggested. I haven't seen her videos, but I have heard of her. I wonder if my channel might be too small for it to be worth it to her to come on. Thanks for the recommendation though.
I meant metaphysical indeterminacy in the sense of indeterminacy in the world itself, to contrast with mere epistemic uncertainty about the outcome of an experiment.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 79 | คู่เอก "ก้องชัย vs อาเมียร์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/WfPSA1A0NHc/mqdefault.jpg)
Related videos:
Values in Science
th-cam.com/video/YecBcnakxGY/w-d-xo.html
The Experimenter's Regress
th-cam.com/video/Ow_h8RH0tlc/w-d-xo.html
Scientific Method
th-cam.com/video/Zop6eVSXUH0/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/LiGiOC6-O6M/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/7sdUxcnXTXU/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/bPF5V7MoSTM/w-d-xo.html
Bring back "what's up dawgs" or I riot
The more variables for which to account and the less validated the underlying theory, the more difficult replication is. Generally physics experiments are easier to control for variability than social experiments. The underlying theory allows for phenomena confirmation in ways more than just direct experiment replication. New phenomena and new methods require more skeptical approaches.
This gon be good
Do you think it's a little weird that I can now predict what your next videos are going to be based on things we've talked about a lot recently?
I'm pretty sure I told you I was doing a video on replication... So not that weird in this case lol
Yeah, you told me after we talked a lot about successful inductions being gerrymandered for like a week straight. I take successful replication/reproduction to be a very similar topic
I love so much you series about philosophy of science!
Maybe we really should have built two large hadron colliders and two James Webb Space Telescopes, and had a couple of gravitational wave interferometers? I liked it much better when we could all replicate Michael Faraday's experiments at home.
good shit, homie
cheers
A second run of the same experiment by the same researchers can be a replication. Often one finds that an earlier result does not repeat, investigation reveals the earlier result to be an artifact.
Hey, complete newbie to philosophy here, i dont quite understand the issue of point 1. The stated idea is that theories are required for definitions but isnt this what hypotheses are for? Also in general that papers generally (should?) define keywords before using them
Hi Kane, this video made me think of a question I've been meaning to ask you. What do you think of X-Phi (experimental philosophy)?
Was wondering if you looked at string theory since your talk with your lover and that other guy. Sabine Hosenfelder's Video on string theory is pretty interesting although, i haven't the slightest background in physics. I know you don't really do interviews on here but that would be a super cool crossover to have a conversation with her. I think you both have some perspectives in common.
I read a couple of articles about the "no alternatives" argument that Brown talked about, and actually I don't think it really depends on the details of string theory. I also don't think it's anywhere near as problematic for scientific antirealism as Brown suggested.
I haven't seen her videos, but I have heard of her. I wonder if my channel might be too small for it to be worth it to her to come on. Thanks for the recommendation though.
Can this first post be replicated? I think not.
Indeterminacy is not only metaphysical. Nowadays the evidence suggests exactly same conditions can have different outcomes.
I meant metaphysical indeterminacy in the sense of indeterminacy in the world itself, to contrast with mere epistemic uncertainty about the outcome of an experiment.
@@KaneB thanks for explaining, im not familiar withe meaning some words have in philosphy.
Experiments HAVE to be repeateble ty plz
1:38 Well you can trust a philosopher to go and mess that up!