- #31
- 19,811
- 10,782
Part two has been published
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/scientific-inference-come-know-stuff-ii/
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/scientific-inference-come-know-stuff-ii/
Insights Scientific Inference and How We Come to Know Stuff - Comments
- Thread starter bapowell
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Logic Scientific
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around the nature of scientific inference and knowledge, emphasizing that scientific theories are not necessarily "true" but rather useful approximations that work well enough for practical applications. Participants reference philosophers like Kuhn, Hume, and Kant to explore the distinction between pure mathematical knowledge and empirical scientific knowledge. The conversation highlights that scientific knowledge is inherently uncertain and based on inductive reasoning, which assumes regularities in nature that cannot be definitively proven. This leads to a critique of how scientific theories with significant political implications are presented, suggesting that they are often treated as absolute truths rather than approximations. The importance of understanding the limits of scientific knowledge and the role of education in fostering critical thinking about scientific inference is also discussed. The dialogue touches on the challenges of induction, the nature of knowledge, and the philosophical implications of scientific models versus reality. Overall, the thread advocates for a nuanced understanding of scientific theories as tools for understanding rather than definitive truths.
Similar threads
- · Replies 11 ·
- · Replies 9 ·
- · Replies 15 ·
- · Replies 6 ·
- · Replies 4 ·
- · Replies 7 ·
- · Replies 19 ·
- · Replies 24 ·
- · Replies 7 ·
- · Replies 8 ·