Criteria of Ampleness.


68 views
Uploaded on:
Category: Business / Finance
Description
2. What are their significance?TestabilityNecessary condition for being scientificPossible contender for knowledgeMinimal condition for further studyScope, Fruitfulness, Conservatism, SimplicityInvolved in systematizing, bringing together
Transcripts
Slide 1

Criteria of Adequacy Testability Scope Fruitfulness Conservatism Simplicity

Slide 2

What are their hugeness? Testability Necessary condition for being logical Possible possibility for information Minimal condition for further review Scope, Fruitfulness, Conservatism, Simplicity Involved in systematizing, binding together & creating logical learning.

Slide 3

Testability A speculation is logical just in the event that it is testable, that is, just in the event that it predicts something more than what is anticipated by the foundation hypothesis alone. E.g. what makes glaring lights work? The little pixie speculation Non-testable variant Testable form Ad hoc theory A typical kind of non-testable theories

Slide 4

1642 - 1727 1879 - 1955 Scope Other things being equivalent, the best speculation is the one that has the best extension, that will be, that clarifies and predicts effectively the most differing wonders. Einstein " s hypothesis has more noteworthy extension than Newton " s.

Slide 5

The precession of Mercury " s perihelion

Slide 6

Fruitfulness Other things being equivalent, the best theory is the one that is the most productive, that is, makes the best novel forecasts. Einstein " s hypothesis " s novel expectation

Slide 7

? = Conservatism Other things being equivalent, the best theory is the one that is the most preservationist, that is, the one that fits best with set up convictions. E.g. theory: a wrongdoing is submitted by outsiders.

Slide 8

y H 1 x H 2 x Simplicity Other things being equivalent, the best theory is the most straightforward one. Bend fitting for trial information:

Slide 9

Copernicus (1473-1543) Ptolemy ( c.87-150) The Copernican Revolution Ptolemy " s geocentric hypothesis versus Copernicus " s heliocentric hypothesis

Slide 11

The geocentric model of the Universe:

Slide 12

The issue - clarifying the retrograde movement of the planets. Ptolemy " s arrangement: Epicycles

Slide 13

The heliocentric model of the Universe:

Slide 14

Retrograde movement in the Copernican framework: The most powerful variable: Copernicus " s hypothesis is much less difficult than Ptolemy " s hypothesis!

Slide 15

William of Occam (c.1285-1349) Occam " s Razor Do not duplicate substances past need. Laplace (1749-1827) & Napoleon Discussion: There may have clashes while applying the criteria. E.g., strife between straightforwardness & conservatism on account of Copernican versus Ptolemaic hypothesis. In which ways are Ptolemaic hypothesis more preservationist?

Slide 16

Suggestions for the paper, e.g. effortlessness: How to gauge straightforwardness? What is the psychological status of straightforwardness? Is a straightforward hypothesis nearer to truth? Does it bode well to say as much? What did A. N. Whitehead mean when he said, " Seek straightforwardness & doubt it " ? Etc.

Slide 17

Further Example: Evolution versus Creationism Charles Darwin 1809-1882

Slide 18

Testability & Conservatism Evolution Testable cases, e.g.: About the fossil record of progress in prior species Fits well with current built up convictions, e.g.: The Earth " s history is any longer than a few thousands years.

Slide 19

Creationism Testable cases, e.g.: About the fossil record Conflicts with settled convictions, e.g.: Age of the universe Buoyancy of prior species Types of fossil Noah " s Ark and the colossal surge

Slide 20

Fruitfulness Evolution Has anticipated novel actualities, e.g.: Organisms ought to adjust to evolving situations. Components for adjusting elements and passing them from era to era – qualities and change! Creationism Has just made non-preservationist novel cases, e.g. about lightness.

Slide 21

Simplicity Evolution Without hypothesizing an extraordinary being with otherworldly forces, yet normal systems included. Creationism Postulating a heavenly being with extraordinary forces, however less regular instruments included. Hard to judge, yet creationism is by all accounts less complex under " rational " .

Slide 22

Scope Evolution clarifies various marvels, e.g.: The fossil record of progress in prior species The concoction and anatomical likenesses of related life frames Human arm bones (run of the mill vertebrate example) DNA

Slide 23

The geographic appropriation of related species E.g. the presence of Australia\'s, New Zealand\'s, and Hawaii\'s for the most part novel biotic situations

Slide 24

Creationism " s extension is zero! Creationism " s clarifications are either fizzled clarifications (e.g. about the fossil record) or pseudo-clarifications ( 偽贋說明 ). Pseudo-clarification Appealing to " an unlimited being with unimaginable forces " – a thought that does not permit any expectations! Conclusion: It " s much a great deal more sensible to acknowledge development than creationism.

Slide 25

Discussion: Creationist: " A wing couldn " t have developed bit by bit. What great is a large portion of a wing? " How might you answer in the event that you " re an evolutionist? References http://anthro.palomar.edu/advance/evolve_3.htm http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/http://www.religioustolerance.org/evolutio.htm

Recommended
View more...