Karl Popper: Summarized Classics: SUMMARIZED CLASSICS

By MAURICIO ENRIQUE FAU

The greatest thinkers of humanity at your fingertips, in minutes! 
If you thought you would never be able to understand the essential classic authors, you were wrong! 
With our "Summarized Classics" collection, you will understand the main ideas of the most important thinkers in a very short time and with little effort.

 

The present volume covers the central axes of this discipline.
Among them, the reader will find an analysis of the following: The logic of scientific research (1934) / Science: conjectures and refutations (1963) / Popper and the hypothetico-deductive method. Plus a helpful glossary.

• Language: English
• Publisher: BOOKS AND SUMMARIES BY MAURICIO FAU
• Release date: Sep 30, 2021
• ISBN: 9798201768423

MAURICIO ENRIQUE FAU

Mauricio Enrique Fau nació en Buenos Aires en 1965. Se recibió de Licenciado en Ciencia Política en la Universidad de Buenos Aires. Cursó también Derecho en la UBA y Periodismo en la Universidad de Morón. Realizó estudios en FLACSO Argentina. Docente de la UBA y AUTOR DE MÁS DE 3.000 RESÚMENES de Psicología, Sociología, Ciencia Política, Antropología, Derecho, Historia, Epistemología, Lógica, Filosofía, Economía, Semiología, Educación y demás disciplinas de las Ciencias Sociales. Desde 2005 dirige La Bisagra Editorial, especializada en técnicas de estudio y materiales que facilitan la transición desde la escuela secundaria a la universidad. Por intermedio de La Bisagra publicó 38 libros. Participa en diversas ferias del libro, entre ellas la Feria Internacional del Libro de Buenos Aires y la FIL Guadalajara.

Book preview

Karl Popper: Summarized Classics

SUMMARIZED CLASSICS

MAURICIO ENRIQUE FAU

Published by BOOKS AND SUMMARIES BY MAURICIO FAU, 2021.

KARL POPPER: SUMMARIZED CLASSICS

––––––––

MAURICIO FAU

Copyright © 2021 Mauricio Enrique Fau

All rights reserved.

ISBN: 9789871719105

––––––––

DEDICATION

––––––––

To my children Elías, Selva, Greta, Ciro and Yaco.

To my life's daughter Emma.

To my wife Cecilia.

Table of Contents

Title Page

Copyright Page

Karl Popper: Summarized Classics

WHO IS POPPER

THE LOGIC OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH | CHAPTER 1

The problem of induction

Elimination of psychologism

Deductive testing of theories

POPPER: | PROCEDURES OF THE | TESTING OF THEORIES

The problem of demarcation

Experience as a method | POPPER: | REQUIREMENTS TO BE MET | THE EMPIRICAL THEORETICAL SYSTEM

Falsifiability as a demarcation criterion

The empirical basis problem

Scientific objectivity and subjective conviction

CHAPTER 3 | Causality, explanation and deduction of predictions.

Strict and numerical universalities

Universal concepts and individual concepts

Universal and existential statements

Theoretical systems

Some possibilities of interpretation of a system of axioms

Levels of universality. The modus tollens.

CHAPTER 4  FALSIFIABILITY | Methodological rules

Logical investigation of falsifiability

Falsifiability and falsifiability

Events and happenings

Falsifiability and consistency

CHAPTER 5

Perceptual experiences as an empirical basis: psychologism

About the so-called protocol clauses.

The objectivity of the empirical basis

The basic statements

The relativity of basic statements. Solution of the Fries trilemma

Theory and experiment

SCIENCE: CONJECTURES AND REFUTATIONS | I-

II-

III-

IV-

V-

VI-

VII-

POPPER: THE STEPS OF THE RATIONAL AND SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDE

VIII-

IX-

X-

POPPER AND THE HYPOTHETICO-DEDUCTIVE METHOD

POPPER (HYPOTHETICO-DEDUCTIVIST): | ELEMENTS OF REFUTATION TO INDUCTIVISM

The theoretical burden of observation. Its role in the theory

3 + 5 = 7 | 2 + 6 = 7 | 3 + 5 = 2 + 6

H→O  (IF H THEN O) | ~OR  (OR IS DISPROVED) | ―――― | ~H  (H IS REFUTED)

H→O  (IF H THEN O) | OR  (OR IS TRUE) | ―――― | H  (H IS TRUE)

METHODS IN THE FACTUAL SCIENCES

a) Verificationism (Mill) | b) Confirmationism (Hempel) | Hypothetico-deductive method

fallacy of affirming the consequent

STEPS IN THE POPPER METHOD

STEPS OF THE HYPOTHETICO-DEDUCTIVE METHOD

GLOSSARY

Sign up for MAURICIO ENRIQUE FAU's Mailing List

Further Reading: David Ricardo: Summarized Classics

Also By MAURICIO ENRIQUE FAU

About the Author

About the Publisher

WHO IS POPPER

THE LOGIC OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

CHAPTER 1  OVERVIEW OF SOME FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS

CHAPTER 3  THEORIES

CHAPTER 4  FALSIFIABILITY

CHAPTER 5  THE PROBLEM OF EMPIRICAL BASIS

SCIENCE: CONJECTURES AND REFUTATIONS

POPPER AND THE HYPOTHETICO-DEDUCTIVE METHOD

GLOSSARY

WHO IS POPPER

Popper, Karl Raimund (1902-1994): Austrian philosopher of science based in England, head of falsificationism or critical rationalism and central figure of the hypothetico-deductive method. A fierce enemy of totalitarianism and historicism, Marxist in his youth and admirer of Freud, he broke with them and devoted himself to fighting them, arguing that they are theories not open to refutation, but only to confirmation. Although he was not a member of the Vienna Circle, he followed a line similar to that of this group, although he criticized some of its theses: verificationism and confirmationism, giving his own version of logical positivism. Among his main works we find: The Logic of Scientific Research ( 1934), The Open Society and its Enemies (1945) and The Misery of Historicism (1957).

THE LOGIC OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

CHAPTER 1 

The man of science proposes statements and contrasts them step by step. He constructs hypotheses and contrasts them with experience by means of observations and experiments. THE TASK OF THE LOGIC OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IS TO PROVIDE A LOGICAL ANALYSIS OF SUCH A WAY OF PROCEEDING.

The problem of induction

Inductive is the inference that goes from singular or particular statements (results of observations or experiments) to universal statements (such as hypotheses or theories).

However, ANY CONCLUSION WE DRAW IS AT RISK OF BEING FALSE. Whatever the number of white swans we have observed, the conclusion that all swans are white is not justified.

The question of whether inductive inferences are justified is called the problem of induction.

According to Reinchenbach, the principle of induction determines the truth of scientific theories. However, the question is how to justify the principle of induction itself?

The answer would be with a higher level principle of induction and so on, which would lead us to a regression to infinity that ultimately justifies nothing. Neither Kant (who proposed that the principle of induction is valid a priori) nor the inductivists who speak, not of validity, but only of probability, manage to solve the problem.

Inductivism is opposed to the theory of the deductive method of contrasting, deductivism.

Elimination of psychologism

For a statement to be examined logically, someone must have formulated it. However, there is no logical method of coming up with new ideas. Every discovery has an irrational element or a creative intuition.

Deductive testing of theories

Once an idea (hypothesis ) has been presented, conclusions are drawn from it by means of logical deduction. These conclusions are compared with each other to find logical relationships.

POPPER:

PROCEDURES OF THE

TESTING OF THEORIES

Logical comparison of the conclusions with each other, to test the internal consistency of the system.

Study of the logical form of the theory, to see if it is a scientific theory or not (e.g., a tautology is not).

Comparison with other theories

Contrasting by means of empirical application of the conclusions that can be drawn from it

Thus, the procedure is deductive: singular statements or predictions are deduced from the theory and tested by means of observations or experiments. If the result is positive, the theory passes the tests (for this time) and there is no reason to discard it. But if the decision is negative, i.e., if the conclusions have been falsified, this reveals that the hypothesis from which those conclusions were derived is also false.

a positive result is always provisional, because there is always the future possibility of refutation, by testing the hypothesis in other cases.

The problem of demarcation

Inductivism does not serve to distinguish a scientific hypothesis from one that is not: it does not provide a demarcation criterion.

For the positivists (empiricists), this problem is solved by admitting as scientific the concepts that, as they said, are derived from experience (such as sensations, impressions, visual or auditory memories, etc.).

Other more modern positivists say that science is