Cartesian Dualism With the “new” Method of Doubt, Descartes arrived at the conclusion, that he can doubt everything except the existence of his own mind. And it is important to understand that he can doubt his physical body but not his mind, therefore he argues that there is a significant difference between Mind and Body. Modern science has shown how the brain is, simplified stated, a machine which causes thinking. For Descartes this was not his understanding of the brain. He rather thought that the brain can be understood as the connecting organ between the physical body and the immaterial mind.
I previously thought that indoctrination related dictators and radical leaders whose mission was to get others to believe their views without question. But, having engaged in this course and with relevant readings I soon realised that this wasn’t the case. By writing this essay, I hope to answer these questions to the best of my ability. At the start of my engagement with this course I wondered what the answer was to these questions but after much research I hope to find myself understanding fully – what is indoctrination? As John white exclaims “Indoctrinating someone is trying to get him to believe that a proposition ‘p’ is true, in such a way that nothing will shake that belief” (181).
Calling it a ‘good’ theory might be impropriate in that sense that Popper is not interested in having a good or even right theory. He is interested in whether a theory should be ranked as scientific, also called the problem of demarcation. He determines a theory qualifies to be truly scientific if it is “incompatible with certain possible results of observation.” The theory has to make predictions that may possibly turn out to be false; it has to be falsifiable by data. Moreover, the possible results that can falsify the theory has to be determined in advance. Theories that are immune to new data are not false, they are just not ranked as scientific.
I. Descartes – Evil Genius Problem A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF DESCARTES’ THEORY The Doubts about the Evil Genius Doubt 1. Existence of evil genius? Although it may seem trivial to question the hypothetical being, Descartes’ arguments are also phrased cunningly to avoid questions. While Descartes is clearly considering even the most remote possibilities in his method of doubt, all he offers is the claim that such a being could exist. However, this is hardly a solid basis upon which to build the degree of doubt required by Descartes.
The PI, in sum states that science was full of mature empirically successful theories that were later proven to be false. Therefore, inductively, we can infer that our own mature empirically successful theories will be proven to be false. That is a problem for scientific realism because van Fraassen argues that scientists do not achieve success because they know the truth, but rather, because they empirically test theories until they find one that corresponds to the world, and then such theory becomes true. According to the PI, however, those empirical successful theories will soon be proven to be false - which means all the realists tested and accepted as true will be proven false. From that, we can take that science does not know nor will achieve the
He focuses that it is a risky doctrine that the distinctive frameworks resemble commonly untranslatable languages. Popper was by all account not the only one who imagined that Kuhn was relativist, "There is no one else than Thomas Kuhn who contributed more to the across the board acknowledgment of psychological relativism in the late years." (Watanabe, 1991) Popper did in the end acknowledge that he had misjudged Kuhn's perspectives. He says of the view that examination of various scientific theories requires a consensus on the general framework, a view with which he opposes this idea. He composes “...
Whereas doubt involves in questioning some belief of a perceived ‘reality’ and may reject previous knowledge. This essay will focus on the extent to which more knowledge could cause doubt. The basic progress of Science is made possible through imagined hypothesis by scientists attempting to determine and establish the meaning of the unexplained. These hypotheses will then be tested or experimented upon through scientific procedures, and among the entire conclusion drawn the positive ones will be theories. Those theories that are held as “scientific knowledge” will remain until they are doubted, proven wrong and contested against; in the future challenged by new experiments and explorations.
The label of the task is an important consideration, as participants should not know the effect of what we are trying to prime. The label provides a cover story for the actual task and it allows participants to know that this is a meaningful task. The label should not be related to what we are trying to prime and it has to make sense and be believable to participants. If participants are provided with a label that is not believable, they will question the study and the
Scientists will need a skeptic's critical thinking and scrutinization of formulated theories, ideas, conclusions, experiences and etc. They will be the one to review the credibility of a scientific result or idea and if it did not meet the qualifications to be called as scientific evidence,
For making null hypothesis, the important points to remember are: (a) Null hypothesis represents the hypothesis which a researcher is trying to reject. On the other hand alternate hypothesis is the one which a researcher wants to prove. (b) If it happens that the hypothesis is rejected when its actually true involves a risk then it is taken as null hypothesis because then the probability of rejecting it when it is true is the level of significance) which is chosen very small. (c) Always, the null hypothesis should be specific hypothesis. Hypotheses have been formulated based on the extensive review of available literature.