Annotation:Text:The Logic of Scientific Fallibility/Z97emrxscn
< Annotation:Text:The Logic of Scientific Fallibility
Revision as of 14:16, 29 January 2020 by Sarah Oberbichler (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{WissenschaftlicheReferenz2 |field_radiobutton=Information }} {{TextAnnotation |AnnotationOf=Text:The_Logic_of_Scientific_Fallibility |LastModificationDate=2020-01-29T14:16:3...")
Referenztyp: | Information |
---|
Annotation of | Text:The_Logic_of_Scientific_Fallibility |
---|---|
Annotation Comment | |
Last Modification Date | 2020-01-29T14:16:37.048Z |
Last Modification User | User:Sarah Oberbichler |
Annotation Metadata | ^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Z97emrxscn","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ25Ӻ","startOffset":0,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/blockquoteӶ2Ӻ/pӶ3Ӻ/supӶ1Ӻ/aӶ1Ӻ","endOffset":3°Ӻ,"quote":"The conventional approach to science has always maintained that the more people observe a thing, the more “real” that thing must be. Yet, the skeptics, ever since Pyrrho in the 3rd century B.C., have produced quite irrefutable arguments against this view. And, in our time, Paul Feyerabend has spoken against it from a different perspective. In his essay How to be a Good Empiricist, he argues as follows. (I have taken the liberty of leaving out a couple of paragraphs that refer to quantum mechanics and of changing one word— I have substituted the word “model” where he has “theory”):\n\n... assume that the pursuit of a (theoretical) model has led to success and that the model has explained in a satisfactory manner circumstances that had been unintelligible for quite sometime.\nThis gives empirical support to an idea which to start with seemed to possess only this advantage: It was interesting and intriguing. The concentration upon the model will now be reinforced, the attitude towards alternatives will become less tolerant.\n\n... At the same time it is evident, ... that this appearance of success cannot be regarded as a sign of truth and correspondence with nature. Quite the contrary, the suspicion arises that the absence of major difficulties is a result of the decrease of empirical content brought about by the elimination of alternatives, and of facts that can be discovered with the help of these alternatives only. In other words, the suspicion arises that this alleged success is due to the fact that in the process of application to new domains the model has been turned into a metaphysical system. Such a system will of course be very ‘successful’ not, however, because it agrees so well with the facts, but because no facts have been specified that would constitute a test and because some such facts have even been removed. Its ‘success’ is entirely man-made. It was decided to stick to some ideas and the result was, quite naturally, the survival of these ideas.Ӷ3Ӻ","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321049352358140712142":^°°,^"jQuery321049352358140712142":^°°,^"jQuery321049352358140712142":^°°,^"jQuery321049352358140712142":^°°,^"jQuery321049352358140712142":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"WissenschaftlicheReferenz2","data_creacio":1580303796724°
|