Did he?
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose @BaileyNagy
IMO yes, in his 'conjectures and refutations'. Often in humanities only his falsification theory is taught. That is not the whole story.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JCMaas @BaileyNagy
Would he disagree with the wine bottles & tennis ball example?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @BaileyNagy
Yes. Knowledge is created by conjecture and criticism. Observation or experiment never confirms theory 100%. Can only refute.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JCMaas @BaileyNagy
So we can only assume that bigger things don't fit inside smaller things coz every time it's been tried, it's failed?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @BaileyNagy
Because past observations don’t logically include conclusions about future observations.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JCMaas @BaileyNagy
But this is very tedious & only needs to be acknowledged once. We can still use induction to attain usable knowledge & function.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @BaileyNagy
I would disagree on that. Rejecting induction is the key to solving some thorny (and very tedious) problems/misconceptions in the humanities
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JCMaas @BaileyNagy
Can you give an example? Can I not assume that if B is taller than A & C is taller than B, C is taller than A?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @BaileyNagy
All you know is that, so far, the ‘all C are taller than A’ hypothesis is not refuted.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Well, no. But to say If C is taller than B and B taller than A, C is taller than A?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.