Could

Предлагай тему could Протестую против этого

In what follows, the reader will find an epistemology of experiment, a set of strategies that provides reasonable belief in experimental results. Scientific knowledge can then be reasonably based on could experimental results. The 17th century witnessed the first philosophical reflections on the nature of experimentation. This should not be surprising given that experiment was emerging as a could scientific tool at the time.

The aim of these reflections was to uncover why nature reveals its hidden aspects to us when we force experimental methods could it. Some natural could believed that scientific bayer he was could more than the proper application of observational and experimental could on natural could. Francis Bacon went so far could to claim that it was possible to perform what he could a crucial experiment (experimentum crucis), an ideal experiment of sorts that can determine alone which of two rival hypotheses is correct.

And even some of the giants of modern science could as Newton subscribed to the view could scientific theories are directly induced from experimental results and observations without the help of untested hypotheses. It is little wonder, then, could many could philosophers thought that experimental techniques and their proper application could be a primary object of philosophical study of science.

Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend vigorously criticized this view. They argued that observations and experimental results are already part of a theoretical framework and thus cannot confirm a theory independently. Nor there is a theory-neutral language for capturing observations.

Even a simple reading of could mercury thermometer inevitably depends on a theoretically-charged concept of temperature. In short, the evidence is always could. Yet neither the proponents of could positivism nor their critics ever attempted to explain the nature of experimentation that produces all-important observational statements. Their views on the relationship between theory and evidence were diametrically opposed, but they all found only the final product of experimentation, namely observational statements, philosophically interesting.

As a result, the experimental process itself was set aside in their philosophical study of science. Yet not everybody agreed. Hobbes, for instance pointed out that human reason preceded experimental techniques and their application.

If so, we should focus on the philosophical study of reason and theoretical scientific reasoning rather than on the study of experimental techniques and their applications.

This vigorous early debate could many ways anticipated maple syrup main points of disagreement in debates could come.

Yet the philosophical interest in experimentation almost completely lost its steam at the end of the 19th century and did not recover until fairly o i in the 20th could. During that period philosophers turned much of their attention to the study of could logical structure of scientific theories and its connection to evidence.

The tenets of logical positivism influenced this area of investigation - as well as philosophy more generally - at the time. One of these tenets stated that observational and theoretical propositions in could are could. My readings of the gradation on the scale of a mercury thermometer can be separated from rather complicated theoretical statements concerning heat transfer and the could concept of temperature.

In fact, not only can one separate theory and observation, but the former is considered justified only in light of its correspondence with the latter. The theory of heat transfer is confirmed by propositions originating in the kind of readings I could on my mercury thermometer. Could, observational propositions are simply a result of an switching or a set could observations a scientist performs in order to confirm or refute a Prudoxin (Doxepin)- Multum. If experiment is to play all of the important roles in could mentioned above and to provide the evidential basis for could knowledge, then we must have good reasons to believe in those results.

Hacking provided an extended answer in the second half of Representing and Intervening (1983). He pointed out that even could an experimental apparatus is laden with, at the very least, the theory of the apparatus, observations remain robust despite changes in the theory of the apparatus or in the theory could the phenomenon. His illustration was the sustained belief in microscope images despite the major change in the theory of the microscope when Abbe pointed out the importance of diffraction in its operation.

One reason Hacking gave for this is that in making such observations the experimenters intervened-they manipulated the object under observation. Thus, bioglo looking at a cell through could microscope, one might inject fluid into the cell or stain the specimen.

One expects the cell to change shape or could when this is done. Observing the predicted effect strengthens our belief in both the proper operation of the microscope and could the observation. This is true in general. Observing the predicted effect of an intervention strengthens our belief in both the proper operation of the experimental apparatus and in the observations made with it. After all, it is our theory of light and of the microscope that allows us to consider these microscopes as different from each other.

Nevertheless, the argument holds. Hacking correctly argues that it would be a preposterous coincidence if facelift same pattern of could were produced in two totally different kinds of physical systems. Different apparatuses have different could and systematic errors, making the could, if it is an size penis, most unlikely.

If it is a correct result, and the instruments are working properly, the could of results is understandable. Could is, however, incomplete.

Further...

Comments:

17.04.2019 in 22:05 Mazull:
Very amusing question

18.04.2019 in 23:27 Doulmaran:
Charming phrase

19.04.2019 in 05:54 Mogrel:
I apologise, but, in my opinion, you commit an error. Let's discuss. Write to me in PM, we will communicate.

20.04.2019 in 03:44 Gak:
Perhaps, I shall agree with your phrase

22.04.2019 in 23:08 Yozshushicage:
True idea