Sir Karl Popper and the problem of induction

I mean we scientists are really arrogant you know what we claim we claim that our theories actually working the whole universe and all of the laws of physics that we have here on earth are basically can all be applied to the rest of the universe I mean how crazy is that I've not visited the rest of the universe how can I know how can I have never been behind the moon how do I know that a pen or something that I drop here on earth will also drop on the moon I've never been there before you know what I'm a biologist just a cell theory you know what the cell theory says all living things are made of cells I have not seen all living things yet how can I say that isn't this crazy we scientists we generalize our theories our general okay and we're actually doing the wrong thing because I'm also a teacher in almost all my students it look listen your research questions to be specific more specific it's not specific enough okay and then almost on water we scientists doing we're going general okay it's kind of weird right and this is actually a problem that has been recognized already for a very long time okay essentially it's like this that's called it's called the problem of induction to qualities it's it's such a big problem that they even invented their own term for it it's called the problem of induction what is it what what does this mean induction is or inductive logic is if you have a specific case a specific experiment and then you kind of extrapolate a general law out of a specific experiment okay that's kind of what we scientists are doing right and I see one living thing a plant under the microscope here it has cells Wow I see a second one earthworm I put on your I see cells Wow I put a mosquito on here I see cells Wow three things are all living things are made of cells right from three individual cases I'm extrapolating I claim I develop a theory that covers all living things and that is called the problem of induction because the people are philosophers and scientists realized already quite early on it that that's actually a problem okay how can i how can you do that right how can you how can you generalize so much right because we want to rely on science to tell us something about the world right and then we're actually doing exactly the thing that you're not supposed to do you're kind of claiming that the world is like this by coming up with a general theory even though you only know a few specific cases it's called the problem of induction right and this problem of induction has been people have a word about this philosophers and scientists for for many many years and there's another problem that people have a worried about and that is essentially the thing is that just because two things happen at the same time that's called correlation right does this actually mean that one thing causes the other thing to happen I mean there's this classical example I mean by the way this is correct the more ice cream that you sell the more people are bitten by sharks I mean it's clear right we've got the statistic for that it's so well if I just tell you that and you're probably gonna say ah eating ice cream somehow attracts the Sharks right or I don't know yeah it's dangerous maybe you should maybe forbid selling ice creams right but but the thing is the following it's like it's summertime during summertime more ice cream is being sold and more people go swimming that's why they're more often bitten by sharks but you see that's an example of correlation but maybe there is a connection I don't know how do I know so the question really is is how often do things have to happen together so that they're actually really connected by cause and effect right so this was another thing that people have worried about for a long time and the thing is the following that there was a guy his name was Sir called popper he's considered by many people to be one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century and this guy he worried also about this and he actually solved the problem of induction and he basically proposed the following he said well theories are only correct until they are proven wrong and he called this principle is falsification principle so basically when I say that all living things are made of cells okay then this theory that is correct until someone finds me one living thing which is not made of cells so it's up to you now you go out you a microscope and you find me this one living thing that's not made of cells and if it's really not made of cells then you know what you've killed was one experiment you've killed a whole theory okay so that is a pretty remarkable and what this is basically what he said is the following a scientific theory is a good scientific theory if it is easily falsifiable careful falsifiable means that it allows you to do an easy experiment to prove it wrong but if it is not has not been proven wrong yet then it's a good theory okay some people say if series have to be false no that's that's not that's not correct falsifiable means that it must allow you to come up with an experiment to possibly prove it wrong okay and if it still has not been proven wrong then it's a very good theory okay cell theory being an example which is a very good view because so far it has not been proven wrong and it will stay correct until someone finds me one living thing which is not made of cells okay so this is how he basically solved this problem this problem of induction he says yeah okay we have to do induction we have to generalize okay but what we're saying is it's not always truth until all eternity okay it's only correct until it's proven wrong so kind of he limited this a little bit okay so this kind of gave a much it's not a different view of what science is because and in the around the 1920s there was this concept of logical positivism around and many people still stick to that without actually knowing it this is well it's scientific it's science if you prove it correct you just do an experiment then it's correct yeah but that's logical positivism and that's an outdated approach to science okay because we now know that just because you prove it once I don't know I've got this wall here with some chemical I drop it a draw let go and it falls to the ground I've proven it correctly all objects fall to the ground right yeah but one experiment is enough right no it could be I don't know the next time I'm dropping out on a fly or something flies away right so I have to change the theory around again yeah but what popper said is is well you just stick to the theory until you find more of the contrary okay and the logical positivists of the 1920s they thought you've got one experiment and that's it and then the theory is proven and that's essentially what nowadays viewpoint an outdated view so why is popper actually so useful and he's one I think it's one of the most useful philosophers around because it's really a good thing because he with his principle of falsification he also has now a method to actually decide whether a certain statement is scientific or not I mean there's so much I mean nowadays in the internet so much so many false claims and things that are actually not scientific being sold as being scientific okay so but what is now scientist scientific when a statement when I make a statement I don't know blue is a nice color okay for me to sure it's a nice color I like wearing blue why is it not a scientific statement the reason what popper said it is because you cannot do any experiments with it to possibly prove it wrong you will almost be a nice color for me okay it's always a nice color right so there is no way that this can be disproven right and so this basically means that if you if somebody makes a claim and claims it to be scientific then essentially you always have to ask a second question is there a certain can you do some kind of an experiment that actually would possibly prove it wrong I give you another example of what popper actually criticized all the psychoanalysis a lot and you are who you are because of your early childhood experiences I think this nobody might deny that okay yeah sure why not but there is no way that you can experimentally test that okay there is no way that I can turn time back to and that's why he said it's not scientific right so this basically shows that the philosophy of circle popper isn't actually very useful in that sense because his principle falsification not only makes it clear what science isn't what it is not but it also solved this so called the problem of induction that it the issue that people were worried about so many it generalization problem right yeah and as I mentioned already before there are special terms for everything so this was the one that was the problem of induction in this problem of separating the sciences from the non science as I just want to tell you how important this was for unit 4 that they invented their own term it's called the demarcation problem I don't think that it's important for you to know it or remember it but I just want to emphasize that these problems are so big in the philosophy of science that they actually invented their own terms for this ok the problem of induction the demarcation issue right ok I think that is really all I wanted to say for right now I think it's not gonna be the last time that I'm gonna talk about so-called popper because it's cause a few other interesting things as well but for right now I think simply wanted to clarify what his philosophy is a little bit and I wish you a nice day all the best and bye bye

Channel: TOKTalk

Views: 1,206

Rating: 4.9384613 out of 5

Keywords: tok, theory of knowledge, philosophy, epistemology

Id: YUvWnGdsUkE

Length: 9min 37sec (577 seconds)

Published: Mon Jul 15 2019