If it lacks either reliability or factual adequacy, it is untrue. Finally, experience is not self-interpreting. An interpretive outline is paramount for meaning. Without assuming a world view there can be no meaning or truth. Ultimately, the very option of relevant discourse depends on
Einstein’s theory of relativity was found to be acceptable by Popper. Albert Einstein claimed that light traveled towards heavy bodies that bend space-time. The theory made claims that could easily have been proven false if the observations came back against Einstein. This is the boldness that Popper thought seperated a real scientific matter from a pseudoscience. Popper was less impressed with Adler’s theory of
It might be enough to write several books about. I was surprised by the problems I had to find easily accessible overviews of the influence of Descartes on the modern World. The reason, I came to assume, is that one can not just simply state the areas in which Rene Descartes was influential, since our whole Modern World is influenced by his thinking. Mathematics, Physics, Religion, Philosophy, actually the whole sector of Science and even the averages man's Worldview. And even if we have thinkers who are not as much Cartesian, like Nietzsche or Marx, we still have to assume that some of their basic starting points came out of a scientific Worldview created by the Method of Doubt of Descartes.
However, this is hardly a solid basis upon which to build the degree of doubt required by Descartes. Ironically, his skepticism undercuts itselfto the degree that I am in a state of doubt, I will also have doubt about the possibility that there could even be such a deceiver. As such, my doubt about the possibility of
Since premise two has been rebuffed by me, it renders premise 3 unsound which in turn renders premise four unsound thereby proving that God does not exist and proving that the first cause argument does not validate or prove the existence of God. The first cause argument while it is a very important argument still lacks credibility and is self-defeating as it is riddled with a lot of problems that makes it hard to reach a true and sound
The problem with this, is that Brodie (1946) was both correct and incorrect. He correctly identified that speed kills, but, he incorrectly thought that nuclear warfare was the ultimate weapon. While Brodie and his theories on Nuclear warfare in, The Absolute Weapon, gave us the predominant strategy of nuclear warfare still used today, a strong argument can be made that Admiral Nimitz was correct in his criticism of “the Absolute weapon.” “Before risking our future by accepting these ideas at face value, let us examine the historical truth that, at least up to this time, there has never yet been a weapon against which man has been unable to devise a counter-weapon or defense.” Admiral Nimitz Ultimately, what Brodie was perhaps leading too was that there is an “Absolute Weapon” in war. If you could find a way to distill war down to its absolute properties, perhaps you could create the ultimate weapon. What we have witnessed thus far is that speed kills.
Max Plank’s Quantum Theory: At the time of the late 18th century, most physicists believed that there was not much more to be discovered in physics, and that they had discovered most of what was there in it. This was the time when the classical physics was mostly accepted in science. But at the time of the start of the 20th century, physicists came to know that the laws of physics weren’t valid in the atomic world. The Photoelectric effect did not work according to the theories of light that were widely accepted at the time of its discovery. An increase in the energy of light did not have the same result as an increase in the intensity of light.
More specifically, it holds the idea that mature, empirically successful scientific theories tell us the truth (or approximate truth) about nature and the world. The primary aim of science, according to scientific realism, is objective truth, as opposed to mere empirical success. One of the main arguments for scientific realism is the No Miracle Argument (NMA), conceived by Hilary Putnam. The argument follows that if science did not reach the truth, its great empirical success would have been a miracle. Everything ever created by science would have been either a miracle, or a cosmic coincidence.
Although theory suggests that particles remain entangled regardless of their distance, the flaws of instruments such as optical fibers make this impossible in reality3. Chinese physicists and engineers are tackling this obstacle. In 2012, physicists at the University of Science and Technology of China (Shanghai) smashed the quantum teleportation record when they created two separated entangled photons at a distance of 97km successfully3. Since the old record of 16km was also achieved by another group of Chinese physicists7, there is no doubt that the development of quantum teleportation in China will continue to out-perform other countries. Quantum entanglement is a scientific phenomenon that is changing how scientists view well-known existing physical laws.
There is no logical reason that science could not advance cumulatively, but the historical evidence suggests that it does not in practice. According to Kuhn, there are