H/t @byrd_nick
Blog by Michael Huemer
-
-
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
See what you think of my paper "Ducks, Rabbits and Normal Science: Deconstructing the Kuhn's Eye View of Popper". https://www.phil.vt.edu/dmayo/personal_website/(1996)%20Ducks,%20Rabbits,%20and%20Normal%20Science%20Recasting%20the%20Kuhn's-Eye%20View%20of%20Popper's%20Demarcation%20of%20Science.pdf …
-
Cool, thanks!
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
Great stuff, spot on.
-
I agree - I was surprised by the vitriolic responses!
- Još 1 odgovor
Novi razgovor -
-
-
What do you have to say about this?
@ToKTeacher@Crit_Rat@DavidDeutschOxf@mizroba -
https://t.co/9it7TXocfM https://twitter.com/tokteacher/status/1221256788751683584?s=21 …
- Još 1 odgovor
Novi razgovor -
-
-
I don't care how many people like to bash Popper these days (and some with good reasons) but his idea that a theory that can't even be falsified in principle is utterly useless is a) true and b) extremely useful.
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
*bookmarked*
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
You are wrong - a probabilities based approach can be the pragmatic way forward to make progress in science and technology, but as far as truth and reality are concerned, we would be arrongant to think Popper is wrong. Logic overwhelms our human misperceptions. Keep thinking.
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.