Careful when claiming a theory to be “correct”. Indeed, the cell theory may be correct, but just because we haven’t been clever enough to find a counter example doesn’t mean it is correct. Correct means it’s truth value is True and will remain True. And if we do falsify the cell theory, we don’t make it wrong when we find a counter example. It has always been wrong but we are just learning that
Technically a Popperian wouldn't say "all theories are true until they're false" but instead say "all theories have not been proven true until they're false".
Why would you try to show something is false, if you have already assumed they are false? Like reductio in logic, you assume the premise is true, then you derive a contradiction. You would not assume that the premise is false.
The original comment is wrong. Popperians would say "all theories are true until they're false", because for us the meaning of 'true' has connotations of fallibility and of it being provisional, as opposed to it being certain. We say 'true' in an almost tongue-in-cheek way. We don't say the second statement because it's nonsense. How can a theory be proven to be true only once it's been shown to be false?
Well that is not at all how the cell theory was established. I understand it is used as an example, but it would be good to read some books like Henry Harris "the birth of the cell" how science is done in reality.
Your video is good, but you need to clearly demarcate Popper's logical claims from his methodological claims. In logic, it is true that just one counter instance of a universal theory is enough to falsify that theory, but methodologically all experiments are tentative and so the decision to categorise it as false (if that's what you do) should always be up for revision. This puts a lot of emphasis on creating rigourous experiments, you need to design experiments in such a way that if a negative result is received, there are easy ways to check your experimental set up, for mistakes. There's only so much that logic and method can do. It is up to the experimenter to really design that experiment well. This is why falsificationism is important and should stressed, it really encourages people to design experiments well.
Sir, I am Bsc Math and IS student, when I first encountered Sir Popper's work, I went crazy!!!!!....it is very scientifically amusing....especially the debates involving Thomas Kuhn.
I am sceptical of this man's claims, specifically that of being a scientist. He has mentioned he is a scientist a number of times (attempting to gain validation by title) but given no evidence of being a scientist. Where did he gain his biology degree? What research is he presently engaged in that qualifies him to claim he is a scientist. And his explanation that someone might make a claim after testing three examples .... is ridiculous. I have never read a scientific paper or seen an article that makes a generalised claim on so small a set of data. Hopefully, in future he may provide more evidence.
he lectured in a university in Linz, so i would say yes, hes a definitely a scientist. theres no need to be so skeptical, its all public info on linkedin
Uh, his example is exactly the point of whole video tho. He is giving an example as to why we don't just generalize from just a limited set of data, instead we try to look for cases that do NOT support our theories. Also an example with just 3 cases, or 30000 cases is all the same, see the black swan problem.
@@AriaHarmony Why can’t people understand what Popper is straightforwardly saying. No amount of data can induce a generalisation since induction is impossible. That is Karl Popper’s position and has always been that. What would be the cut of for the right amount of data in a data set, when theories are ‘all’ statement and have no bounds on their scope. It is purely arbitrary. Generalisations are guessed first and then we test them for errors and if they are found to be erroneous, we try to replace them or modify them.
@@arinaiditch7769 Anytime we undergo a chain of reasoning, we can fall into error i.e. arithmetic and algebra. So, I'm skeptical of deductive reasoning also. In the treatise of human nature, Hume has a section called 'on the skepticism of reason"; Hume makes a good argument that even our reasoning regarding relations of ideas can be flawed. We have no knowledge, and there is really nothing that can be learned.
@@humeanrgmnt7367 Deductive reasoning is about the transmission of truth (validity), not about deciding what is actually true. So you can reason validly and still come to wrong conclusions, if your premises are false. If you think deductive logic should do more, then you are not really understanding its role.
At first I thought I was not understanding you properly is because of your English accent. I'm assuming you're fluent in some other language and English is just your academic or second language. But having heard to the end, I'm not convinced that your education about induction is complete. You can barely articulate induction much less specify what is it about induction that we find problematic and why. (As Hume put it, because it originates in the mind in the faculty of imagination and not rationality or intuition). Popper did not "solve" the problem of induction as much as give a way of rationalizing those subset of inductions that can survive rational scrutiny. Popper recovers those parts of inductive reasoning aided by ratiocination. The problem of induction as first formulated by Hume still remains in one form or another 300 hundred years since he first thought of. Hume forced us to think beyond reason as an unavoidable step to demonstrable knowledge. You coming from a scientific background, I was expecting a tighter grasp of the subject matter.
You are confusing two different problems: the generative theory of induction and the varificationist theory of induction. These are clearly separate issues. Popper did not talk about a subset of inductive inferences, because there are none. Induction is a logical contradiction. It states that you can extract information from evidence that is not contained in the evidence.
