Reddit reviews The Logic of Scientific Discovery (Routledge Classics)
We found 6 Reddit comments about The Logic of Scientific Discovery (Routledge Classics). Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Routledge
Here are mine..
Five works by Karl Popper, who IMHO is the greatest skeptical thinker who ever lived:
And two books by Nicholas Nassim Taleb, who may be the greatest skeptical thinker currently living:
Taleb has also just come out with another book The Bed of Procrustes: Philosophical and Practical Aphorisms, which is funny and has an important message, but doesn't really go deep into his ideas as the earlier books. Personally I am looking forward to his next book on the subject of "Anti-Fragility", a concept coined by Taleb himself.
Any serious reader of /r/skeptic should be familiar with the ideas put forward by both of these men.
Edit: Formatting.
While these are not all specifically about religion, here are a few things that I think everyone should read at some point in their lives.
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (this is where the term 'paradigm shift' came from).
Karl Popper on politics
Karl Popper on science
Get some historical perspective on the philosophy of science
The Power of Myth
A History of God
If you have debunked the fact and theory of Evolution it would be a huge event, no? When will you be getting your Nobel Prize in Biology?
Perhaps you should read Karl Popper's "The Logic of Scientific Discovery"
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0415278449
Ok, so before I get into everything I have to preface this with some details about me.
I debated for 4 years in college and have been a debate judge ever since, this means I have 7 years of continued debate experience and most of my friends are debaters. The type of debate I did was called British Parliamentary which is perfectly tuned to train you to do well on the writing portion of the GRE. It was all about encountering impromptu topics and being able to make well structured and well sourced arguments while having no physical evidence at your disposal. This taught me to think of very complex and detailed arguments very quickly, I think this is the key to getting a six on the exam.
So, look up BP debate online or on youtube and watch some of the debates and you'll get an understanding on how people like me think about arguments. If you expose yourself to these ideas/habits you'll be fine. I did about 45 minutes of preparation for the test in total not including the 3-4 practice essays I wrote in the practice tests I took leading up to the test.
You can also go to intelligencesquaredus.org and they have a bunch of great debates with experts that also think in the same fashion.
Now to the pointers. First, if you want to learn how to use the Toulmin model to structure your arguments, cut down on fluff and bring your salient points to the table feel free to PM me since it's an entirely different post all by it self.
Before you even get to the test, I would suggest you familiarize yourself with some science philosophy because questions about scientific institutions or fields of inquiry or business come up all of the time and the lessons taught in these books teach you content you can use in the argumentative section, and things to look out for in the assumption/logic section. I based the bulk of my argument section on "The Structure of Scientific revolutions, by Thomas Kuhn. I would also highly suggest checking out [The Logic of Scientific Discovery, by Karl Popper] (https://www.amazon.com/Logic-Scientific-Discovery-Routledge-Classics/dp/0415278449/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1474048437&sr=1-3&keywords=karl+popper). Both of these texts not only give you a great picture of how science functions, they also give you substantial insight into the reasoning behind science and other ventures. This is crucial to pull from in the logic/assumption section.
Before we go on, I'll give you the essay topic that I recently encountered, I'll refer back to it throughout the post: "In regards to fields of inquiry, younger professionals are more likely to make massive contributions to their fields than older professionals".
Before I start actually writing the essay, I take scratch paper and outline my argument. I give myself about 7-8 minutes for this (we used to get 15 minutes to make a 7 minute argument in BP, which includes getting to your room, you can practice this ability by looking up BP topics. If you can't find some, PM me and I'll send you some). I don't put together all of my arguments in full form, I just write "tag lines" pertaining to the gist of my argument. For example, in my essay I would write:
I: Kuhn, structure of sci revs: Paradigm. How young=better
A. What is paradigm
B. Young scientists unique to push paradigm
a. Older scientists base livelihood on old assumption/paradigm
This is more words than you need. You're not going to refer back to this word for word, instead it's a mental exercise to keep you organized. You came up with the ideas, so you're not going to forget why you put something in the linear order if it is linearized. I wouldn't forget what I was going to talk about in regards to assumptions/paradigms if I put down old scis base livelihood on old stuff.
This model helps organize your thoughts so you don't have to waste time thinking of what's coming next, you can just throw a narrative down on the page. I think I wrote about 1000 words per essay this way. Most guides say you need to write above 600 words to get above a 5.
When I'm thinking of arguments, I put myself in the shoes of the people I'm being asked to discuss. I think about the obstacles that an old or young professor or business owner confronts when trying to make a massive contribution. I think about what their crisis is, along with what their strengths are. I balance the strengths and weaknesses of the competing parties. I also think about the people in their environments, how are they going to treat the people in question. Will their peers respect them, not respect them, will they engage with them or let the researchers show that they should be paid attention to first. There's a lot to think about with this, but if you put yourself in their shoes, all of these characteristics play themselves out in front of you very quickly. This is why practicing those debate topics are so important, it trains your mind to think quickly about these alternatives.
At the top, I used a phrase to begin that was relevant to the topic at hand. I probably started off saying something along the lines of "the life of a researcher is chaotic, the notion of publish or perish lies in wait, hovering over everything you do". This is preferable to simply restating the prompt. Remember that graders only spend a couple minutes on each essay, and if you seem boiler-plate from the get go, you're going to get a boiler-plate grade.
Like many debaters, I like to do an overview at the top of my essay. Once I get my introduction finished with a hint of where I'm going to go with my arguments, I then make just the claims of my arguments and perhaps the impacts/solvency (check out Toulmin) in the second paragraph. This provides the reader with a clear line of what he/she expects to see in my essay and it makes the arguments seem more clear to them because they know what to expect.
This was something along the lines of: "The arguments present in this paper will consist of analysis of the notion of the paradigm and how it contributes to advancement of the entire pursuit of science. Following this, the ramifications of tenure on a scientists career will be expressed and critiqued. Finally, the idea on how infrastructure access could hamstring younger scientists and thus, allowing for older researchers to take command will be discussed." This takes very little time to write, but it's very helpful for the grader because now they know where to look for, for development of arguments and the power of your reasoning. If you don't do this, it's possible that the grader will overlook some of your points and you may get a worse grade by human error.
The rest of the paper writes itself if you have a solid outline. You just need to make sure that all of your points have a "why" to them. Why is your claim (assumption at the beginning of your argument) correct, you should use reason and substance to make these seem true. Don't leave anything as an assumption.
Furthermore, I think the single most important characteristic in making a great argument is establishing what we call uniqueness. This is establishing why the thing you say is happening is actually CAUSING the thing to happen. You make it clear through your arguments that there are no other justifications for what your saying is true is actually true. I have a couple arguments on this one. First that older scientists have built their livelihood and careers on the assumptions and paradigms that they helped create/maintain, so they have developed a unique myopia to other alternatives that younger scientists haven't yet developed. Furthermore, young scientists are in a unique position to need to see things differently so they can make the contributions that lead to tenure. My entire second argument is about how tenure forces younger scientists to make big contributions and how it makes older scientists lazy because I ground the discussion in terms of publish or perish, up until you get tenure. The emphasis here is on mutual exclusivity, if "this" happens "that" can't happen. If a person doesn't have tenure, they're not safe and they have to publish exciting new things. If a person has developed or instilled a paradigm, they (I would argue) can't find another paradigm because it threatens everything they've worked for so they develop a selective myopia. Now this may not be the objective truth, but it comes across as a solid argument.
Before rolling out personal definitions, consider reading a book.
> So what is your definition of science
"All science is either physics or stamp collecting."
> And don't tell me data mining is not seeking to explain the material universe better, that is the entire point.
Please tell me you were joking.
And no, what you describe there is not science. The theory part is just applied mathematics, rest is engineering. The heuristics used are educated guesses about the model at best.
A few kids trying to infer what kind of video I'd like to watch next, they're not doing science either.
I'm not a sjw so that wouldn't really work out. "All the world’s Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though" This is obviously a loaded observation that is meant only to offend and make 13yr ratheists blow a load in their trench-coat. The Nobel Prize is a western institution that has been around barely over a hundred years and the recipients chosen based as much on politics as on contributions... so as a measure of anything it is wholly useless. I'm not going to tediously deconstruct why, if you interested http://www.amazon.com/Logic-Scientific-Discovery-Routledge-Classics/dp/0415278449/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1376206740&sr=8-2&keywords=karl+popper is a good place to start.