PHILOS 8 Lecture Notes - Lecture 6: Pood, Bone Density, Falsifiability
Document Summary
Another path: reject inductive skepticism (induction is just irrational) Try to give a theory of confirmation/disconfirmation: relationship between evidence and hypothesis. They think they can show induction is rational. Either way you have to say something about why the scientific process if epistemically good, why it is a reasonable process. But it seems there is a form of inductive arguments is epistemically good, what scientists are doing is rational/reasonable. Popper different from the lp (logical positivists) in two important respects. He was not trying to give an account which sentences are meaningful. He wanted to distinguish between scientific and pseudoscientific hypotheses and theories. Popper was an inductive skeptic , he did not try to give a theory of confirmation. 1 distinguish scientific theories from pseudo scientific theories. Demarcation problem: is the problem of distinguishing scientific theories from pseudoscientific theories. Important to scientists and public because we use them all the time to justify one side from the other.