KUHN! Philosophy Battle - SCIENCE WARS - FULL EPISODE 3
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ก.ย. 2024
- This is Episode 3 in the Series for the Philosophy of Science Battlefield.
PLEASE WATCH SUBSCRIBE and Check out Episode 2 FALSIFICATION
LINK TO NEXT VIDEO:
• Philosophers Vs Sociol...
LINK TO PREVIOUS VIDEO:
• FALSIFICATION - Popper...
Twitter:
philobattle
To support me
patreon.com/Drecom
or
paypal.me/DrecomInc
Track: Last Heroes - Dimensions [NCS Release]
Music provided by NoCopyrightSounds.
Watch: • Last Heroes - Dimensio...
Free Download / Stream: ncs.io/Dimensio...
Other Music purchased from Video Co-Pilot (I have paid for the licensing and use).
Thomas S. Kuhn. "Logic of Discover or Psychology of Research?"
Readings in the Philosophy of Science: From Positivism to Postmodernism, ed. Theodore Schick Jr. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield, 2000. Print. 13-19.
Patrick J. J. Philips. The Challenge of Relativism. New York, NY,: Continuum, 2007. 22.
plato.stanford...
10/09/2018
"A few years ago I happened to meet Kuhn at a scientific meeting and complained to him about the nonsense that had been attached to his name. He reacted angrily. In a voice loud enough to be heard by everyone in the hall, he shouted, "One thing you have to understand. I am not a Kuhnian." Freeman Dyson, The Sun, The Genome, and The Internet: Tools of Scientific Revolutions (1999)
----------------------------
IF YOU READ THIS. COOL.
![เขามัทรี - เอ็กซ์ ศุภกฤต - จอนนี่มิวสิค [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/AS9ufKuQIVs/mqdefault.jpg)
great content when i first learned the popper way of falsification and distinction between science and pseudoscience i said the same thing happens with science but kuhn knew how to elaborate the idea and explain it in a reasonable rational way
Dude... great video!! It's a shame this hasn't gotten more views!
Thanks for the sub and comment - Yeah it turns out I can visualise philosophy decently but I suck at promotion. If you could also tweet my video out or share it on a face book group perhaps, it would be much appreciated. How did you find this video, if you don't me asking? In any case check out my new video I just uploaded - Philosophers vs Sociologists let me know if you like it :).
@@PhilosophyBattle I will *definitely* be checking out that vid; as a statistician, I have a bit of a bias against sociologists and their practices... I'd love to see a philosopher's take, even if it disagrees with my own!
I found your video basically just by perusing search results for either "the science wars" or just "epistemology of science", but I can't remember which.
Unfortunately, I'm not a very active social media presence, so I'm doubtful my sharing of the video will reach many, if any, people (it's worth a shot anyways, though).
That said, I do know how to analyze data quite effectively; if you ever feel so inclined, I might be able to help you with some market research/promotion from that angle. I'd love to see this channel get a good following and see more videos from you!
Wow, thanks for that wonderful offer. I'll definitely keep that in mind. I could use any help I can get here. Here you go, my latest episode- may need to up the volume, audio is lower than usual but hope you enjoy it. thanks. th-cam.com/video/HWd0OTool40/w-d-xo.html
Positivism does get you anywhere because of confirmation bias. This is why Popper's falsification sword is so sharp.
I see this as just empiricism and rationalism having differences in utility while being inseparably entangled, rationalism being the upstream from which empiricism becomes possible. Innate rules are built in.
pleaaaaase morrreee
Great video
I do not agree with Kuhn idea that philosophy does not have constraints as oppose to science. If you are a dualist , for example, no matter how good arguments are there for a theory of consciousness that says that it's a product of the brain , the dualist would not accept it. He will try to poke holes in it which is fine .... that's how philosophy works..
Did you not just contradict yourself? Science must have restrains for it to do any kind of practical work. That's what a paradigm is. It's a playing field where "normal science" or "puzzle solving" can be done. Philosophy doesn't have such constraints. It's the busniess of philosophy to probe and challange science every step of the way.
so what you basically mean is that if we have only one falsification we should blame the person and not the theory but when we have a multiple falsification tests we can blame the theory ? plz reply
Philosophically we won’t even necessarily call the failure of a test falsification. We would just call it failure. And who or what is to blame for the failure, whatever it is, it will not be the theory given the theory is already very much trusted and established. Often it is the scientist that is blamed, but in the sense that the scientist didn’t take care for some variable they ‘should have’ if theory isn’t the problem which is the last thing we will consider. But if many tests are failing, and even very good scientists’ tests are failing who have tried to take care all the variable the can imagine, only then we will be able to conceive as an expert community that the problem may be with the theory, according to Kuhn.
@@PhilosophyBattle ty man
and one more thing if we apply this concept on freud psychoanalysis it is a science because freud did say why this didn t work and came with new ideas or am i wrong?
Yes, the same with Marx. It seems like they both are scientific under Kuhn's view, but I'm not expert.
No to neutral observational language of positivist? Whats this about?