Clifford states that if you do not have good evidence for something, then it must be wrong. I examined both articles closely and considered which one made the most sense to me. I believe that both authors, in their own way are correct, but I also found flaws in both William James paper and William Kingdon Clifford’s argument. William Kingdon Clifford states that a belief
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
Scientists take the unknown and make it known. The audience will better understand the scientific method if it seems logical. Including examples of Einstein, accepting scientific theories, and designing experiments show that the basis of Barry’s argument is factual. “Einstein refused to accept his own theory until his predictions were tested,” showing even the best of the best scientists study with uncertainty. Barry’s appeal to logos helps characterize the intellectual side of science.
The enlightenment was a dramatic revolution in science, philosophy, society, and politics. The purpose of this movement was to push society away from the medieval age and into a modern western society. It began in the 16th and 17th century with the scientific revolution. The scientific revolution looked to explain scientific principles from a philosophical point of view. Prior to the enlightenment, scientific laws and principles were agreed upon by society.
Justified, true belief knowledge is only real if there is no conceivable doubt, but nothing can truly be inconceivable fact. In “Mediation I: What can be Called into Doubt”, Descartes tries to find solutions to this, but he only raises more questions about the world. Skepticism arises to challenge the idea of a perfect knowledge and to question the human mind and the world. Descartes reflects on the countless falsehoods he believed that became his knowledge about the world and wipes everything out of his mind to begin anew. Descartes starts with the foundations of knowledge, deciding only to accept opinions as truths when there isn't any conceivable doubt in his mind.
On Popper’s idea of falsification as criterion of problem of demarcation physics, chemistry and psychology are sciences, psycho- analysis is a pre-science, i.e., it contains some really insightful truths, but until it is not falsifiable it cannot be accepted as science, astrology and phrenology are pseudo- sciences. Formally, Popper’s theory of demarcation may be articulated to understand as having two parts: (a) one part having inconsistent instances or is a potential falsifier to the theory; (b) the other part having consistent instances or are
If we find out that we were mistaken about something, we move in that instant from the old belief to a new belief. As a consequence, we almost never have the experience of believing something we know to be false. Instead, believing that we are right about everything all of the time becomes the usual state of affairs (Schulz, 2010). No wonder, then , that overprecision is so
In Darwin’s Middle Road, Stephen Jay Gould depicts inductivism as something that reduces genius to dull. Gould sees the “eureka” view as a creativity trait that only geniuses have. He does not necessarily agree with inductivism because at one point inductivism depicted science as a brutal, almost a barbaric discipline offering no legitimate place to peculiarity, instinct and all the other abstracts characteristics adhering to our vernacular notion of genius. He was against inductivism for all those reasons and he even mentioned in the essay that the way it’s being seen right now. He agrees with the criticism against inductivism and says that they are valid and he welcomes the dethroning of inductivism in the past 30 years and a necessary prelude
These people who seek to destroy Orwell's essay would say that this evolution is natural and that nothing should be done to stop it. What Orwell is saying in his essay though is that "Modern English, especially written English is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble" (529). So therefore those who want to trump Orwell's argument miss this one key element that makes his easily defendable and that is that what is happening to the English language is not a natural evolution as some may believe but an
According to Stirling (1999), Hume was also a great philosopher. From an epistemological point of view, he questioned the notions of identity that was personal and argued that that there is nothing as ‘self’ which was permanent and progressive. Hume dismissed the belief of casualty and argued that our concepts of case-effect concerns were based on thinking rather than in causal forces