The main concept of observations and experiments in science, Popper argued, is trying to criticize and to prove existing theories are wrong and so . The problem of induction is based on the ‘bucket theory of the mind’ roughly it goes like this "there is nothing in our mind which has not entered through our senses". "But we do have expectations and we strongly believe in regularities". Popper has three theses to this problem the first one is , there is no rationally justifiable method of induction the second one is, there is no reliable method of induction and lastly there is a critical method of science that is
Mackie’s argument from queerness is founded upon a naturalistic account of the world. The main idea of the argument from queerness seems to imply that we should not believe in the existence of objective values because they would not fit in with a naturalistic world. He is convinced that there are no moral facts and properties, and we cannot possibly have moral knowledge. There are two parts in Mackie’s argument from queerness, one metaphysical and the other epistemological. The metaphysical component
Rowe mentions G.E. Moore theory as “The G.E. Moore’s Shift”, which ignore the classical philosophy made from skeptical philosophers that there is no evidence that supports the existence of an object. Moore uses a different strategy that questions that the existence of an object, which in such cases he used as an example a pencil. Moore makes two claims that contradict each other.
The court reasoned that ?the evidence did not meet the requirement that the evidence be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs,? thus the test results were summarily excluded by the Court.? ?The court held that without an established place in science, the test was still in the blurred realm between experimental science and demonstrated science, and therefore inadmissible.? ?In the court?s words, as the deception test was not ?sufficiently established?,? the testimony related to it is inadmissible.
Hume aims to challenge the structure of the cosmological argument and questions the validity of the assumption that things that exist need causes or reasons for their existence. Hume says that just because each of the elements of the ‘chain’ has a cause, it doesn’t follow that the chain itself needs an initial cause. Furthermore, Hume suggested that we have no experience of universes being made and it is simply not possible to argue from causes within the universe to causes of the universe as a whole. There is a logical jump which the argument fails to recognise. It is one thing to talk about causes that operate within the system of the universe, but it is an entirely different matter to theorise about whether the universe as a whole is caused.
The paradox of free will involves the apparent incompatibility of the existence of free will and the existence of determinism. Free will claims that we make choices freely based on nothing but ourselves. Determinism claims that all events are causally determined, meaning that one event will naturally cause another event to happen. Since free will, determinism and incompatibility, cannot all be true, a paradox arises. I will begin by illustrating why some may be in favor of free will.
Aquinas believes a human law that is in conflict with natural law is not actually a law: "a human law diverging in any way from the natural law will be a perversion of law and no longer a law" (Aquinas 54). Because natural and eternal law appeals to a higher form of justice than human law, both King and Aquinas assert that people can break human law if that law goes against the 'higher law.' Martin Luther King Jr. writes, "I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances because they are morally wrong." When King writes "they are morally wrong," he is contending that the segregation ordinances are in opposition to eternal and natural law. In fact, natural and eternal law being a 'higher law' is the basis of King's philosophy of 'non-violent civil disobedience.'
To ask such a question, however, does not produce a change of context according to Moore. Nor does it show the context of sensitivity of knowledge, let alone the relativity of knowledge to different standards of evaluation. On the contrary, it depends on an invariant concept and raises another question. Not if we know that p, but rather how one can prove that p is known (if it is true). Moore, moreover, agrees that he cannot answer such a question.
The issue of circularity with the syllogistic view no longer applies because it no longer makes sense: if a point is self-evident there is no room for circularity. If the Cogito is self-evident, then there cannot possibly be circularity. Likewise, if the Cogito is self-evident, then the objection I raised regarding the reliability of logic itself does not hold, as no logic is needed to arrive at something that is self-evident. Therefore the Cogito, if it is self-evident, is sound. As a result, the Cogito as a self-evident fact and intuition successfully defeats the strongest skeptical point that we cannot even know if we exist, and Descartes conclusion of the Cogito