How Did Karl Popper Contribute To Knowledge

Scientific research seems very factual and straight-forward. In reality, science deals with uncertainty, something that, when not used in the right way, creates weaknesses. The uncertainty of scientific research allows scientists to explore intellectually as well as creatively, and “venture into the unknown” to create the known. In his account from The Great Influenza, John M. Barry uses formal diction, strategically placed rhetorical questions, and an appeal to logos to characterize scientific research.

Nick Riggle is the author of “High Five!” He is a writer and a philosopher. Riggle is an assistant professor in the department of philosophy at the University of San Diego. His work has appeared on McSweeney’s Internet Tendency. In his article, he claims that being awesome is the desired achievement for many people and that it is the proclaimed antonym of “sucking”. He also mentions that a “high five” is a gesture of showing appreciation. He provides the readers with an interesting clever main argument; however, he does not provide enough reasoning to support his sub-arguments. Furthermore, he occasionally uses misleading examples that weaken his argument instead of supporting it.

In making the argument for the existence of the Law of Human Nature, C.S. Lewis first establishes the acknowledgement of a few different universal laws that man in subjected to. There is the law of gravity, in which Lewis insinuates that in the eyes of gravity, the body of man and a mere stone are one and the same. Then there are biological laws that correspond with those than an animal has. However, the one law that is specific to man and that man is free to disobey or get “mistaken”, is the “Law of Nature or decent behavior” (Lewis). C.S. Lewis uses inductive reasoning to form this kind of logic by first making the observation that even though throughout time man has seemed to have had different agreements of what they believe to be moral,

Nick Riggle is the author of “High Five!” He is a writer and a philosopher. Riggle is an assistant professor in the department of philosophy at the University of San Diego. His work has appeared on McSweeney’s Internet Tendency. In his article, he claims that being awesome is the desired achievement for many people and that it is the proclaimed antonym of “sucking”. He also mentions that a “high five” is a gesture of showing appreciation. He provides the readers with an interesting clever main argument; however, he does not provide enough reasoning to support his sub-arguments. Furthermore, he occasionally uses misleading examples that weaken his argument instead of supporting it.

Karl Popper was a twentieth-century philosopher that had a dissatisfaction with the definition of what could be considered a “science.” The claim of falsification, being able to equally be observed false, made Popper’s argument of demarcation appealing to those with the same inquiries about the method of scientific progress. Popper said to be defined as a real science, one needs to make risky, bold predictions that could easily be refuted by observation. I will argue that the construction of Popper’s scientific progress is flawed due to the refutations of infinite hypotheses and observational unreliability.

Of the three main styles of arguments for the existence of God – the cosmological, the teleological, and the ontological – the teleological is probably the second strongest of these arguments. The teleological argument is also the only one of these arguments that reasons to its conclusion inductively. This means that, unlike the cosmological and ontological arguments, the acceptance of the premises of the teleological argument does not commit you to the acceptance of its conclusion. It only commits you to a judgement about the probability of the conclusion. The style of reasoning typically adopted by this method is one that starts from a posteriori observations about our reality, and then reasons a priori – typically through analogy – to the

Marx and Arendt are two brilliant political theorists who pose different concerns, beliefs and ideals when it comes to the relationship between economics and freedom. Marx defines freedom as creative self- actualization which contrasts Arendt’s definition of freedom as worldly and eruptive action. Marx’s definition is more focused on the individual, which in turn will better society while Arendt is more focused on action as community. Marx believes in a society free from economic oppression by the elite while Arendt believes in one where poverty and politics do not meet.

The Industrial Revolution cast its shadow upon European cities and towns. Some enjoyed this shade while others suffered tremendously because of it. Those who enjoyed the luxuries and wealth that the Industrial Revolution provided, the bourgeoisie, depended on the needs of the poor, the proletarians, to increase the size of their monstrous factories and ultimately their wealth and influence. In “The Communist Manifesto” Karl Marx discusses the effects of the Industrial Revolution in further dividing society by creating new social and economic hierarchies. In addition to his observation of the division of labor, Karl Marx believed, that due to the technological shift from craftsmanship to machinery this also caused division of labor and the appreciation of proletarian handmade goods was disregarded. Through “The Communist Manifesto” one is able to imagine a conversation between Karl Marx and Adam Smith. One where Karl Marx replies to Adam Smith’s theories on the manufacturing process, wages, and the division of labor with the reality of the proletarians, that Adam Smith disregarded. In this essay, I will argue for the shadow of change that machinery has cast upon laborers and the socioeconomic changes that were triggered as a result of the Industrial Revolution and the shift to machinery in factories .

Erikson and Maslow's theories are comparable in that they both focus on social and personality improvement. They likewise both estimate that a person encounters distinctive stages or levels of improvement for the throughout their life (Boles, Danner, Briggs, & Johnson, 2011, p. 110).Although these sound like similar ideas, I have observed they do have their differences.

In inductivism, a finite number of specific facts leads to a general conclusion. In falsificationism, definite claims about the world make a law or a theory falsifiable. The more falsifiable a theory is, the better, but not yet being falsified. For falsificationism scientific progress is possible via trial and error. While inductivism is applied to mathematics for instance where generalization is more possible, falsificationism is really common in biology, physics or social sciences, where there is not a general pattern, but many exceptions to the laws or theories. In falsificationism, people are ready to abandon their claims when they are proved wrong. But, in inductivism the theory has to be non-falsifiable, and they can manage it, because

A good reasoning is a reasoning that leads to certain, true and valid conclusions. There are two kinds of reasoning, inductive and deductive reasoning. Both processes include the process of finding a conclusion from multiple premises although the way of approach may differ. Deductive reasoning uses general premises to make a specific conclusion; inductive reasoning uses specific premises to make a generalized conclusion. The two types of reasoning can be influenced by emotion in a different manner because of their different process to yield a conclusion. I will be exploring how emotions can influence good reasoning through areas of knowledge such as ethics and history.

The word science comes from the Latin "scientia," meaning knowledge. Science attained through study or practice and can be rationally explained and reliably applied. Modern science is typically subdivided into the natural sciences, which study the material world, the social sciences which study people and societies, and the formal sciences like mathematics. The formal sciences are often excluded as they do not depend on empirical observations.[5] We have to keep in mind that science helps us describe how the world is, but it cannot make any judgments about whether that state of affairs is right, wrong, good, or bad and individual people must make moral judgments.

Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim both displayed very differing views on the division of labour, and they each have a different proposal on how a society should be ordered. In this essay, I will be highlighting on how Marx believed in a classless society, and how Durkheim believed in structural functionalism, where a society will adjust to achieve a stable state. Furthermore, I will be relating both of their views to my home country Singapore, and why Durkheim’s theory of structural functionalism will be more applicable to the society of Singapore.

“[T]heory is the framework for observations and facts. Theories may change, or the way that they are interpreted may change, but the facts themselves don't change.” Once the facts and truths of the idea have been set, they cannot change. Eventually with enough facts (truths) this hypothesis can be claimed as a fact itself. It is deemed truth.

How can we know that the knowledge we have is trustworthy in Natural science and mathematics? Knowledge is facts, information or skills that are acquired through experience and education, its the theoretical or practical understanding of a certain subject. Knowledge that is trustworthy is knowledge that is able to be relied upon as honest and truthful information. While looking at Natural science and mathematics we will see that mathematics isn’t necessarily more reliable but the knowledge we obtain in these subjects will be different. Mathematics can be seen as more trustworthy because it uses reasoning. Natural science on the other hand can be seen as less trustworthy than mathematics because it relies on observation. The information we obtain will be affected by different peoples bias for instance in natural science there is a well known bias called observer bias which is a common tendency for a researcher to draw a conclusion from the results based on their own preconceptions of the problem. In mathematics there is a less chance of bias when obtaining the information because the subject relies