Sir Karl Popper's "Science as Falsification"
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ม.ค. 2012
- Originally published in "Conjectures and Refutations" (1963). A key discussion in the philosophy of science.
A discussion of Sir Karl's Problem of Demarcation and the principle of falsification.
www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/p...
You may notice a few places where the audio seems to skip. This is a microphone glitch that has recently developed. I made my best effort to repair or simply trim away any defects I spotted. I'll probably need to purchase a new microphone in the near future.
Learn more about Sir Karl Popper:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
plato.stanford.edu/entries/pop...
Excellent video. Popper was one of the best philosophers of the 20th century. His contributions to philosophy and science are incredible. Makes me wish there was a Nobel Prize for Philosophy.
Thank you so much for the reading. Being dyslexic, I find it hard to concentrate on texts. Always preferred audios, so this has really helped. Thanks again mate
I really hope that you'll have enough time to make more of these, I really enjoy them!
One of the most important individuals for the evolution of science. Since I first read Popper's work, I've gained a whole new perspective of science and truth. Great reading Conc
Thank you for creating this video, I doubt I would otherwise find myself hearing or alternatively reading this essay of Popper's.
Its great how I found your channel a second time through a completely different topic... I'll watch all of your videos now!!
I recently received his book "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" as a gift, and am fascinated by it. Great video explaining his major points.
Thank you for this! I listened to a BBC podcast on Karl Popper and wanted further clarification of falsification.
Thank you so much for producing and posting this!
Beautifully explained, and a real contribution to the science of epistemology. Thanks for sharing this!
Earnst Cassirer Esays on Man deals with the limitations of each study in a similar way to Popper's thinking. Glad someone is posting Popper's work. Thanks much
So clean and concise, and so fundamental. I love it.
That is good.
This honestly makes me reconsider parts of my world view.
I don't think there are many essays/videos who have as strong of
an impact on me as this one.
Thanks for apploading this man, your videos are truely useful and mind-stimulating :))
I love the fact that all science is subjective that everything has a supposition that nothing is correct and that the science is about creating new and better methods and asking new an more potent questions.
@klutterkicker
It's a valid criticism, but I just don't have time to re-record, re-edit and produce this video a second time. I did my best in editing to clean it up. My microphone is failing, so my brief attempt at re-recorded patches ended up with more glitches.
It'll get better.
I was very happy upon finding this in my subscriptions activity.
It would be great if this video could be redone with the things and events Karl Popper is going into depth about. That would make this an excellent video. However, I really enjoy this audiocast of the Karl Popper work.
thank you for posting this...fascinating
I forgot to say yesterday that thank you for posting this read of Karl Popper :)
@tonybeir
It's linked in the Description Box... it points to stephenjaygould, which is becoming my favorite source for science essays.
That was both fascinating and beautiful..
I'm having a really hard time knowing what this video is exactly about, but I notice its something in the topic on how science works.
That was great, I really enjoyed it!
@Fenyxfire I suppose it really doesn't, or didn't until a bit later when people started making mathematical models of what real life traits (flight speed of birds for example) would have to be, if we propose a certain trait is evolved to maximize a certain fitness component (quickest travel time vs. most energy efficient travel speed etc.). At that point it becomes testable and falsifyable (if flight speed isn't as predicted, the fitness component isn't the one being selected for).
@Yony42 how do you test fitness traits of extinct species? you dont
least that's sort of illustrative of what mayr seems to be saying but im just not sure
if i were at home i would pull quotes from the book
i will when i get there
thank you for doing what you do, i absolutely love your videos. I watch the 'relativity of wrong video at least once a week. I have nothing but respect and admiration for your total and unwavering dedication towards the truth and unbiased presentation of the facts. Thanks..please don't go.
Thanks again for making these. The end of that speech was crazy dense.
Also, are there recordings of the original authors making these speeches? Maybe you could mix their readings with yours in a video. ^^
@itsjustameme
... So you could pick something like the large hadron collider or the very large telescope. And then analyze what ideas were needed to make it and get it to work, and how many of these are old ones, new ones, or significantly modified old ones. And how that relates to the amount of smart people working specifically for that one project. A pattern should emerge, then make the prediction that the pattern will also appear when looking at sth else, like SpaceShipOne.
Thank you for sharing this!
In the light of this video I would like to hear your opinion on the meme theory. While near if not completely impossible to prove it's explanatory power is amazing and I feel that learning about the theory has opened my eyes to a lot of explanations about how the world works. But the framework of it as it is defined means that just about anything can be explained or explained away using the theory.
What's your take on it?
@Spinobreaker Seems a little vague. How is exploding a weakness? What is the exact relationship between weakness and power? How do you measure the two? Without some precision how are you going to make accurate predictions? Without accurate predictions what is the use of your theory?
Great vid. Thanks for posting it for us.
Incredible. Thank you for this.
Thanks for introducing me to Popper.
genuine thanks for this it was really helpful
@PaperSoapy Do you have any recommendations for books to further my understanding of critical thinking? I've long thought I should read about logic, fallacies and such, but I dunno where to begin. You present yourself as fairly knowledgable, so I reckon you have some insights?
Excellent reading, thanks so much.
@kurtilein3 Ooh, Feynman! I've watched several videos of him on youtube, and he's a really fun listen :) I've also heard of Michael Shermer... isn't he the founder of Skeptic's Magazine or something like that? At any rate, going into my book-list. Thanks!
heres a conept, i think u might find interesting. Its very simple, and i created it when i was working on a story i wrote in high school.
"The greatest weekness to every power is the power itself"
ie a stars power comes from fusing elements, but eventually itll explode as a result... ok oversimplification yes, but the point is still valid. Ive been trying to find something since then that broke that rule and im yet to find anything...
I was wondering what ur thoughts on this concept are?
Excellent video.
Awesome, thanks for posting this.
Thank you for this video. Two men are responsible for my sorry layman ass knowing how to spot pseudoscience at a glance - Richard Feynman and Karl Popper. Feynman is very famous, but hardly anyone has heard of Popper, and this needs to be addressed - as a philosopher of science, he made no great scientific discoveries, but his influence on the whole of science is enormous. He expressed complex ideas in plain language, the hallmark of someone who wants to be understood. Thanks again.
@kurtilein3
But how would you test it?
This is wonderful.
There is a short video in which Feynman explains the scientific method. Is his explanation based on Popper's work? To me, as someone who is not an expert, it seems to be.
Anyone still know/have the link to the video lecture explaining probability of observations? Examples used were lightballs in the sky, with them being caused by say meteors, airplanes, and aliens. Later applied to religions also, with the likelyhood of people 'rising' from the dead being actually dead, or just suspended etc.
For the life of me I cant find this video again and I need it badly! If you remember, you'd brighten my day!
If a friend helps you ten times. 11th time he refuses. You forget the ten times he helped. And you were never friends. According to his 'Science as falsification' - When applied to human behaviour.
ive been reading ernst mayr's work regarding the autonomy of biology and he seems to be elucidating something of a refutation of some of popper's stuff especially concerning falsification
Have you encountered it? because he seems to be saying that evolutionary biology specifically as a historically oriented comparative science doesnt quite fit into popper's philosophy
and i am a bit confused
*sigh*
Great video. Gotta love Popper.
Recommended: "A Pocket Popper" (Fontana Pocket Readers) Edited by David Miller.
Blurb: "David Miller once Popper's research assistant, has chosen thirty excerpts from Popper's non-technical writings. Together they illustrate the breadth, profundity and originality of Sir Karl's contribution to human learning" [Pub 1983]
This was damn good ! Thank you!
15:16 is where stuff starts to get pretty chaotic. I took a philosophy of science course around the year of 2010. Unfortunately, I had other studies to focus on. However, I am coming back to Karl Popper after many years. And there is a lot of concern around whether or not modern science is a garbage illusion of predetermined actions. I've hypothesized that free-will would be necessary for any real science or knowledge to exist.
@AlwaysSunni
Great! This sounds like a great challenge. Find an astrologist willing to play along. Get them to make a blinded prediction about a person given a certain birth date. Make sure it's a factual, objective prediction that is "risky"... couldn't easily be predicted by other models of human behavior and incompatible with other explanations.
Present them with the failure and see what they do. Do they discard the theory?
It's not unlike the Randi $1M Challenge.
Great video.
@TheSkyIsSideways I wondered if you were confusing the two. Andrew Wiles is certainly a fascinating figure, but it's unclear to me why you think he'd make a fitting subject for one of C0nc0rdance's videos.
@itsjustameme
How would i test it? Just like evolution has been tested before we were able to directly observe it in the lab, in bacteria or fruit flies. By studying reality and analyze if everything fits the pattern that should be there if meme theory is true.
I suggest studying different technological breakthroughs, and look at how many of these ideas are re-applied old ideas and how many of the ideas are new or have been changed significantly.
I really enjoyed this. Although it seems pretty evident to people used to the scientific method, it can be worryingly overlooked.
There is one thing though. Just because a theory does match 100% of the evidence doesn't mean it is unfalsifiable. As long as evidence could be found that would refute it. This is something people mistake about evolution - they mistake it for unfalsifiable, only because the evidence for it is so overwhelming.
@kevinscales - thats actually a very good point...
C0nc0rdance, I've really appreciated your readings of work by Sagan, Russell, and others.
Thanks.
There seems to be a 2 minute gap at the end between the closing video of the DNA and the sound for it. Very interesting video nonetheless.
"The criterion of a scientific status of a theory is its falsifiablity." Brilliant.
What are your thoughts on Kuhn?
Oh no! Well, thanks for letting us all know.
@mrgodbehere Thanks! Gonna put them on my "to read" list :)
@lankatr That was a political demand, its results seemed to contradict the political doctrine. Thats the problem with dogmas, political, religious, etc tec, a human weakness. Thats why I think these thoughts about the sientiffic metod is so important also for lay people to understand..
You sound like Christian Bale when playing Patrick Bateman. Good read. The CriticalG has also read this, but I think your reading is clearer and more relaxed.
@45means45 You mean Andrew Weil? The bushy-bearded diet guru? Is he still around? I haven't heard anything about him in about ten years.
i did already like popper, now i think i love him!
Thanks for the upload, Concordance, but I think it should be noted that many of Popper's ideas have been thoroughly discredited by his colleagues. He claimed that induction did not work and that there was no way to confirm a scientific theory (only to "corroborate" it). If this were the case, then there would be no way of choosing between using a bridge design that had been tested for 50 years and a bridge design that had not been tested at all...
Very well read
I've heard that Karl Popper's ideas do away with the problem of induction but I haven't been able to wrap my brain around why yet. Can anyone help me out?
@itsjustameme
(cont)
Your airbus example reminds me of that guy who says that peanutbutter disproves evolution because every once in a while new life forms should spontaneously arise in such a jar.
Can you point to a fundamental difference between that and your argument?
While psychoanalysis seems intuitively right the problem with it is that it's unfalsifiable. Anything can be explained or explained away with it.
And the same goes for the meme theory.
Excellent
What's with the two minutes of hang time at the end?
Keep these coming :D
Bravo!
Thank you! :)
@sicoticosandro
Remember that his framework doesn't address the "accuracy" of the theories, only whether or not they are scientific. Some of Marx's predictions take the risk of being "incompatible with observation", which makes them scientific, and others do not. That's the only criteria for demarcation, according to Popper: falsifiable predictions.
Amazing, its like a chess variation, we theorise about the algorithm and then use logic to subject the algorithm to falsification and determine its efficacy.
Basic algorithms... Patterns. What if that's all that's at the core of everything, even physical science?
I think you might be correct, look at the physical world and its amazing how much it takes the form of a fractal.
Agreed. Aplhazero is throwing out inductive handicaps out the window and humiliating our algorithms. Perhaps metatruth is beyond our physical limitations and evolution is in order
@Fenyxfire Well that's my point, I think evolutionary biology can probably not be classed as 'scientific' according to Popper, I'm memerly pointing our that recent advents which seek to *predict* rather than just describe do conform to falsifiability. At that point, you can create falsifiable hypotheses about evolutionary forces principles. I'm not certain what exactly mayer is talking about though and I'd be happy to know exactly what his point is. I'm just saying I probably agree.
I cannot for the life of me understand who would dislike a video like this? Astrologers? Marxists?
@AlwaysSunni 1) The experiment must rise to the level of validity sufficient to overturn theory. If it does, then you *do* have to do something about the theory. 2) If such a theory isn't discarded its usually only because there is not yet something to replace it.
Anomalies demand characterization. The real issue with anomalies is knowing *why* they are anomalous, and Popper's whole point is that you have include within that the possibility that the underlying theory is false.
what chapter is this? I cant find it to reference from the book.....maybe im being stupid
But what do you mean by the problem of induction?
@PaperSoapy That's OK I could have been clearer myself about what the problem I had with your statement was. You're right though that (in general) the most vocal atheists *tend* to claim to be more reasonable despite *some* showing a distinct lack of reason. But your problem is with those individuals and we should be prepared to call them out on it despite them being 'on our side'.
A bit confusing at first, but well put generally, thank you.
Thank you
**can you get an AS Degree in philosophy?
I think it was successful. I asked my original question quite a while ago.
@chrisbigred1 Yes, you can! That's part of its beauty.
You need only establish that something can be shown true to a greater level of certainty in an objective sense than something that is falsifiable, while not being deductively true (i.e., mathematical or logical tautologies don't count). This would demonstrate that there was a standard higher than falsification and in fact falsify the claimed supremacy of falsification.
Your move. :)
Chapter 1. In my book it's called 'Conjecture and refutation' rather than 'science as falsification'.
very very very good and insightfull text, keep it coming conc0rdance :)
@biznor3 "If this were the case, then there would be no way of choosing between using a bridge design that had been tested for 50 years and a bridge design that had not been tested at all..."
You obviously don't understand. From Popper's perspective there is a distinction between the two. It's just that there is no guarantee (and can never be any guarantee) that the bridge that has been tested for 50 years won't collapse tomorrow.
@AlwaysSunni
What he calls unscientific is a theory that predicts everything using ad hoc explanations to remain "valid" or getting reinterpreted for the same reason, when it should be properly fixed or trashed instead. Ad Hoc is a logical fallacy. The result is an "explanation" which is not very coherent, does not really "explain" anything at all, and which has no testable consequences - even though to someone already inclined to believe it, it certainly looks valid.
@AlwaysSunni I think those are problems of underdetermination. Yes, they problems for Popper too, but they're problems no matter what methodology you use.
Do you think Popper has actually solved the problem of induction? I'm a bit unsure...
Oh Hume's problem of induction you mean. So I take it that you were not satisfied by Kant's answer? ;) To be honest with you though, I think that Popper's definition of science does solve the problem, since for him science is all about deducing models and then attempting to falsify them.
I gotta say, as someone who used to be a marxist, Popper is absolutely right about the way any event can be made to fit the theory. I'm not say all marxists think that way, but I certainly did, and I bet most do.
All life is problem solving...All life is pattern spotting, it sounds much more positive that using the word "problem"