Senin, 26 Januari 2009

tak home tes lengkap

By Nano Warno

The Background, the motive and the aim of Popper in suggesting the idea of falsification

1) It is very visible that Popper did not like the closed views, not open to criticism. For him, the view is not more of an ideology at all which is accepted fanatically . Truth or knowledge of approaching the truth can be obtained only when science is open to critical (falsification). a dedicated opponent of all forms of scepticism, conventionalism, and relativism in science and in human affairs generally, a committed advocate and staunch defender of the ‘Open Society’, and an implacable critic of totalitarianism in all of its forms.

2) Logical positivism is the school of of philosophy and science who want to criticized by Karl Raimund Popper in the his philosophy called critical rationalism.

3) Thought Karl Raimund Popper in the flow of critical rationalism his disagreement to the basic idea of some logical positivism. His critics against the idea and way of logical positivism, Popper encourage to explain some of the principles in the essence of critical rationalism. These principles include Critics of Induktivisme, Falsification, Trial and Error and Corroborated.

4) Empirical knowledge generated by the way of logical positivism using inductive way of thinking. How to think like this departure from the 'singular statement' as a result of the experience of observation, the 'universal statement' in the form of hypothetical or theoretical.

5) Kuhn said ”Now it is far from obvious, from a logical point of view, that we are justified in inferring universal statement from singular ones, no matter how numerous; for any conclusion drawn in this way may always turn out to be false: no matter how many instances of white swans we may have observed, this does not justify the conclusions that all swans are white”.

6) In conclusion inductive method can not be called a logic in the search for truth. Thus, the logic of truth is deductive logic, which was used by scientists from the long stream rationalist.

7) And statements obtained through the theory of empirical or logical positivism absolute must in the end concluded the statement and whether the theory is right or wrong. This means, the statement and theory must have a final conclusion (conclusively decidable verification or conclusive). If the statement and theory can not be reached this stage, they do not mean that at all.

8) To achieve such conditions, the statement and need to test theory through empirical evidence. If the results show that test statements and the theory is correct, then called verifiability. Conversely, if the empirical test results prove that both are wrong, then called falsification. Efforts / test for any proofing is called falsification. Thus, the test system in the science does not always have to mean the positive (the right), but should also mean that negative (prove wrong).

9) According to Popper, type of typical science is falsifiable, meaning that must be proved wrong through the process falsification. With falsification, knowledge, experience a reduction process error (error elimination). Falsification process of bringing this knowledge is near a truth, but still have character of falsifiable.

10) By Falsification way, the laws of scientific validity: that can not be justified but can be proved wrong. In the same way, developing advanced science. When a hypothesis has been proven wrong, then the hypothesis is abandoned and replaced with a new hypothesis. Another possibility is that only one unsure hypothesis that proved wrong, while the core hypothesis can be maintained, then the elements of earlier abandoned and replaced with new elements. Thus, the hypothesis continue to be refined, though still open to be wrong.

11) Popper condemns scientific system that is closed or definitive, which is close the falsification. According to him, a system like this will continue to make science a decadent ideology.

Systematic account of the process and structure of scientific revolution Kuhn

1) Paradigm in philosophy is view of life, mode, pattern or assumption in theory of knowledge .or a totality of premisess, theorities and methodologis which determine and define kind of study and also paradigm is ground for solving problem

2) Normal science paradigm
The stage is, there is no dispute about the fundamental issues between the scientists so that a single paradigm is accepted by all. And it is this characteristic that distinguishes between normal science and pre-science. Single paradigm that has been received is protected from criticism and that he falsification resistance from many critics and falsification paradigms that guide scientific research experiments or deny the existence of a strict definition, although , the paradigm is covered:
Some typical components that will explicitly propose laws and theoretical assumptions. With so the law "movement" Newton formed part of the Newtonian paradigm. And "equality" Maxwell is a part of the paradigm that has formed the theory of classical elektromagnetik.
Some of the raw materials in the use of fundamental laws for different types of situations.
Some of the instrumentation and techniques, the technique required to make the laws of the paradigm that can survive in the real world and in the paradigm itself.
Some principles metaphysics a very general guide the work in a paradigm.
many information metodologis a very public way that provides breakthrough science puzzles.
Normal science involves detailed and organized effort to define the paradigm with the goal of improving the natural (phenomenon) to solve puzzles science, both theoretical puzzles and puzzles experimental. Theoretical puzzles (in the Newtonian paradigm) covers mathematics planning techniques to handle the movement of a planet depends on several tensile strength and develop the assumption that according to the Newton law application of liquid. Experimental puzzles include the improvement of the accuracy of observation and experiment so that the technique is able to produce measurements that can be trusted.

In this stage there are three focus for the normal factual science research, namely:
a) Determining the facts is important.
b) Adjust the facts with the theory. Efforts to adjust the theory of this fact more evident in the depend on paradigm. The existence of the paradigm is set and to design issues that must be solved; paradigm that is often implicit directly involved in the design of equipment that is capable of solving the problem.
c) to articulate theory paradigm with it ambiguity solve some remaining problems and possible solutions that were previously only attract only.
Perhaps the most prominent characteristic of the normal problems of research in this stage is how at least of the problems it is intended to produce new inventions, the invention of the great conceptual or a great but; normal science target is to solve puzzles and science issues . Puzzle must be marked by a certainty there will be solutions of the paradigm. If scientist failed to solve the puzzle is the failure of science is a failure of science itself is not the failure of the paradigm. Puzzles that are not seen as solvable deviation (anomaly) falsifikasi not as a paradigm.
. Conversely, if a number of anomalies, or facts that can not be answered by the paradigm appear continuously and attack the fundamental paradigm, then this will bring a crisis.

3. Crisis Revolution
Although the target is normal to solve puzzles and science produce non-discovery of new findings that conceptually, the symptoms of new and unexpected repeatedly shown by scientific and detected is followed by the emergence of new theories.
When new things are revealed that can not be explained by the paradigm and the difference between theory and fact cause a serious problem, and anomaly-anomaly are the fundamental paradigm in the way, trust in the paradigm that shaky start and then there were a crisis situation culminate in a paradigm change (revolution).
Anomaly is seen as a serious matter that can shake the paradigm if these anomalies:
a) attact things that most fundamental of a paradigm, and the persistent efforts of the normal science to it.
b) Having importance in relation to some of the urgent needs of the community.
The crisis can be assumed as pre-conditions necessary and important for the emerging new theories. At this stage of the normal science and philosophical disputes occur metaphysics. They plead with the invention of new arguments from the philosophical position be seen from the point of paradigm. Although it is likely to lose their trust and then consider some alternatives, they do not leave the paradigm that has brought them into the crisis as such. Until the acceptance of a new paradigm that is different from the last paradigm.

There in is not first paradigm better than second paradigm it mean between 1 and 2 occur a divorce and will lead revolution.

an complete of image or concept of alternative science in Kuhn outline which drawed in many stages :
Pre-paradigm - Prescience- Paradigm-normal science -Crisis anomaly-Revolution-New of paradigm-Extra ordinary of science –Anomaly-Crisis- Revolution

Metaphysics is the ground of rationality of science in which the ignorance of it lead us to skepticism or despair

Metaphysics has often been associated with the search of for necessary truth. It might seem that if is to provide a firm foundation, it must itself be left standing in need to be kind justification it attempts to offer human practice. And the possibility if metaphysic suggest an escape route from nihilism and a grounding for science.
Metaphysics has always been particularly concerned with what there is, with the nature of reality. That is problem lies at the root s of all questions and perhaps we have to deal with the most basic presuppositions of our thought

Without metaphysical reflection, there would be no suitable intellectual resources on which to draw answer criticism and challenges.
Metaphysics may separate from reality from particular conceptions of it, even they are correct.

Metaphysics as discipline cannot be defined out of existence , or dismissed as irrelevant or meaningless.
Since rationality cannot identified with physical, social or other kinds of process. Because the more significant is the realization that recognizing involves the ability to reason about the subject it self. And science without is undirected and even self-contradictory. Science presupposes that we can recognize the truth and also there is a truth to be recognized and epistemology need some form pf metaphysics. We will trust the science because it give us knowledge and we will regards its pronounces as source of knowledge because we trust it. As scientist we are need an assurance if a link between science and the way things are. If reality were unstructured and disorderly, indeterminate and fundamentally chaotic, science would be impossible. It is thorough metaphysical reflection that we see the preconditions of science.
Science doe not provide one clear and uncontested explanation. It methods often provide a licence for different explanation a varying levels. Which often are unlikely to be all equally right.

Metaphysics star form a conception of reality and then locates humanity I it.
Like science metaphysic also concerned with the character of reality
And metaphysic question sometimes does not have obvious answers
The philosophical discipline of metaphysics often appeared to provide the basis on which all human intellectual enquiry, including empirical investigation, finally rested.
And without this basic human knowledge will lead to skepticism, because how as subject may not assure of any of his intellectual activity and any of process of human knowledge presuppose believing in reality, believing in orderly and believing there is a reality which can depend on as human or subject he can lay on his argument, his existence his, way of searching and so on.

Significance metaphysic for Science in briefly
1. to recognize truth
2. to stand outside of science in order to judge its validity
3. to reasoning about science and not just reasoning within it
4. to achieve a certain distance between ourselves and the light of our judgments
5. science demand justification
6. an ability to talk about system at whatever level entail an ability to stand outside
7. science without epistemology is undirected and self-contradictory
8. science need an assurance that there is reality to be known
9. if reality were unstructured, disorderly, indeterminate, and fundamentally chaotic, science would be impossible and it is trough metaphysics reflective.

Tidak ada komentar: