!DOWNLOAD BOOK ♕ Logik der Forschung ⚖ PDF or E-pub free

!DOWNLOAD BOOK ⚖ Logik der Forschung ♶ When First Published In , This Book Revolutionized Contemporary Thinking About Science And Knowledge It Remains The One Of The Most Widely Read Books About Science To Come Out Of The Twentieth CenturyNote The Book Was First Published In , In German, With The Title Logik Der Forschung It Was Reformulated Into English In See Wikipedia For Details I volunteered to read this book in my PhD Doctoral Seminar because I thought my German language abilities would help me further understand Karl Popper.It didn t.Here s my review Grappling with underlying ideas of how science is discovered and the underlying problems that exist with new knowledge Sir Karl Popper s book, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, directly addresses these issues and additionally tackles a theme important to philosophy epistemology or the growth of knowledge A critical examination of the logic behind science is required for the growth of scientific knowledge Popper s book, published in the early 1930s, elicited a storm of controversy In fact, the author has since written three novels as well as numerous papers to further explain his views The premise he makes is that laws of nature, theories and hypotheses should not be and never should be established as truth Instead, they can be corroborated and supported by the observations and systematic tests of science.Of the three organized parts to the book, the first part deals with an introduction to the Logic of Science The second section, by far the largest, begins to expound upon different components needed to frame his overall thesis Together, these are arranged into short monologues 85 of them that dissect the components of theoretical scientific research The last section of his book contains seven appendices as well as twelve additional appendices added since his first edition These contain examples and explicit rationale to elaborate upon and delve into those items that he felt would be the most contentious or have since been found contentious by his peers.In short, he spends most of his time reviewing some of the fundamental problems that philosophers have encountered and often have chosen to ignore in the advancement of science He takes aim at the generally accepted theory of scientific method , arguing that most methodological rules, conventions, and approaches taken contain fundamental flaws Beginning with the theories in use, he observes that the logical problems, often dismissed by assumption or by convention, should not and do not need to be handled in this way The notion of falsification and the problem of empirical basis are thoroughly discussed A great deal of space is devoted to the nuances of testability and simplicity followed by two dozen or so pieces on probability His Observations on Quantum Theory are fascinating as he walks the reader through many of theory s questionable assumptions Finally, he finishes with several thoughts on corroboration, or how a theory stands up to tests This book is NOT light reading a good dictionary to assist with the mastery of his subject area is highly recommended In addition, a college level education in the empirical sciences and philosophy wouldn t hurt Figures such as Kant, Bernoulli, Newton, Einstein and others are used throughout the book to support or reject his theses He is well versed in his contemporaries work and speaks with an ease regarding their research and theories in a way that lends credence to his own views Contemporaries such as Einstein, with whom he corresponded, were equally familiar and knowledgeable with accepted philosophical tenets as well as in their particular fields of science Unfortunately, the book s flow and organization leaves much to be desired For example, Popper chose to footnote and comment on nearly every monologue he wrote in subsequent editions The original had been printed near the beginning of his career For many, this is a great boon, because he uses this space to defend his work over time as well as expound even further upon his thoughts He also acknowledges his mistakes or where he has been convinced otherwise and even encourages readers to skip portions of the book he no longer supports Publishing a revised and enlarged edition to correct his work might have made things easier for the reader However, this artifact may simply be a way to show how his thinking has evolved over the years.Owing to the radically provocative nature of his ideas, the many separate books, papers, and symposia this book has spawned, this book has fulfilled its purpose It has become one of the classics in modern logical thinking by critically examining the underpinnings of modern scientific thought and theory This book deserves a place in the library of every serious student of philosophy While writing about logical examination of scientific theories, Popper muses, Our method of research is not to defend them, in order to prove how right we were On the contrary, we try to overthrow them In essence, his legacy remains there will always be another set of laws, another set of hypotheses and their accompanying axioms that will absorb existing theories and well established axioms until the next set comes along And we still have so much to discover. I define the empirical content of a statement p as the class of its potential falsifiers The logical content is defined, with the help of the concept of derivability, as the class of all non tautological statements which are derivable from the statement in question So the logical content of p is at least equal to that of a statement q, if q is derivable from p If you liked that, you ll looooove this book Strictly to be confined within the realms of the scientific disciplines But as far as other realms of human activity are concerned, the methodology espoused here is to be taken in caution. This book gets five stars simply on influence on subsequent philosophers of science This famous work has Popper explaining a methodology of science based on the falsification principle as opposed to the Vienna Circle s verification principle It is a superior incite that in one stroke explains how hard sciences which serves as its model are done and at the same times solves the demarcation problem in distinguishing between whether a concept is scientific or not The falsification principle is a principle that a scientific theory sticks its neck out and shows ways it could be proven false through experiment This is something that Freudian psychoanalysis, for example, doesn t do since any result found in it can explain away any observable Such concepts never leave themselves exposed to the possibility of being falsified and hence are not scientific ideas Popper also defends his frequentist theory of probability against subjective versions of probability The book seems to have been superseded by recent philosophy but that is only because we stand on Popper s shoulders. I studied this while in grad school My thesis, which never got much beyond the notes stage, used Popper and other epistemologies to examine the difference between natural sciences and social sciences The basic hypothesis was that the latter rested on essentially contested propositions For example, Galileo s observations of the solar system and the conclusions he drew therefrom depended on the underlying theory of optics being correct Since both the theory and instruments were new and crude, that was originally probably a pretty formidable attack However, there is nothing about whether or not the theory of optics is correct that is a direct affront to anyone s ideological holdings Meanwhile, over in the social sciences, my suspicion is that there will always be unresolvable debates about the essence of things which is important, charity or justice Seniority or quantifiable capability Popper provided the foundation for much of my thinking, and But my thesis advisor thought I was straying pretty far from International Relations and I was finding there was too much recent epistemology to be read to sustain my interest.I still think I m right but it doesn t really matter, does it If only I was clever enough to understand anything His reputation preceding him, with a pretty good idea of what the main arguments of the book are, it is a daunting task to read Popper in the original But it soon becomes clear that there is enough value, ingenuity and originality in The Logic to merit reading the original book in lieu of, or in addition to, later clarifications, commentaries and critiques including some by Popper himself First, a warning The logical complexity and mathematical sophistication of his arguments, combined with the author s engagement with the partially outmoded terminology of the positivists and probability theorists, means that some sections of the book will almost certainly appear, to all but the most savant of savants, varying degrees of impenetrable, inscrutable and unreadable The dense appendices, full of logical and mathematical proofs, can happily be skipped It is also clear that some parts of the main text of the book have become severely outdated, especially the sections on quantum mechanics cf the Heisenberg Bohr interpretation and its implications The low point of the book, from a readability perspective, namely the 70 dense pages devoted to probability theory, especially that of J.M Keynes, and refuting its implications for science, seem to be of little interest to contemporary debates, and only marginally relevant to Popper s main arguments So I would not fuss about reading every chapter, footnote or appendix The main gist of the book can be expressed in non technical terms And Popper himself does a wonderful job explaining his position in the few opening chapters So it might even be enough to read through chapters I VI.At his best, Popper is a very lucid philosopher of science, whose revolutionary doctrine, that scientific doctrines can never be verified or deemed true, but only temporarily or less corroborated, is carefully argued for, using a combination of natural language and technical terminology which is sometimes helpful, although never absolutely necessary, or so it seems to me The fact that he spends considerable time attacking his contemporaries the inductionists, the positivists, the Vienna Circle, the pragmatists, the conventionalists, etc means that he occasionally gets bogged down in technical minutiae, but the main thread is luckily never lost.Disentangling the the fact that he revolutionized the history of the philosophy of science from the particular arguments advanced in the book is a difficult task As Popper himself always emphasized, there are no isolated observations that are theory free , but we are always carrying with us some metaphysical assumptions strictly speaking untestable, unscientific and unempirical Thus, before reading the book, the reader will almost certainly have been introduced to Popperian methodology via some circuitous route, e.g a commentary, a philosophy course, or a later critique These form a king of background halo through which the reading experience will be refracted Some of the baggage that I personally brought to the reading experience in additional to a deep respect for Popper s critique of inductive science was the importance and value of some of the criticism that has been targeted against him This is no time to go through the theories of Kuhn or Feyerabend, for example, but I m sure the reader will find the time to go read those authors The fact that Popper has influenced subsequent scholarship is vital to understanding him It WILL colour the reading experience, but not in the sense of tainting the pure original picture, but motivating the reading experience with a combination of prejudiced respect and curiosity.However, I wish to offer one major criticism that I have with Popper s wonderfully stringent theory I worry that Popper offers too much of an idealized version of science He proceeds logically to devise an ideal system that bears little resemblance to actual science More concretely, Popper s system if we can call it that contains a realist component and an idealist component, and these two aspects do not mix easily In fact, they are often in dire conflict with each other The realist component, which I admire, is embedded in his notion of how hypotheses and theories come about The idealist component, which I see as the problem, is embedded in his notion of how hypotheses and theories are supposed to be put into the test ideally of the potentially falsifying crucial experiment Overall, Popper s view of science describes an ideal scientific practice, whereby theories motivated by WHATEVER source, be it rational belief or irrational flight of fancy are devised, and crafted, in such a way that they meet the maximum criteria of universality, simplicity and testability i.e falsifiability This is certainly a difficult task, but Popper insists on it In this view, doing anything else i.e devising ad hoc explanations to explain weakness, or devising metaphysical tautologies to explain strengths is frowned upon, and the practice of science is hopefully purified of such bad methodologies But we have a problem, since there is no guarantee that the scientists, who are psychologically very much invested and often in love with their own theories, will, absent strong institutional incentives, be motivated to design their theories in such a manner This assumes too rosy a picture of humanity In his Open Society and its Enemies , Popper has accused social scientists of being naively optimistic But in the Logic , Popper seems to fall for the same fallacious view of human motivation and capabilities Even if Popper acknowledges his logical focus, he SEEMS to be implying that devising such a system of science, where fallibility and falsifiability are crowned king and queen, is theoretically possible.But human beings have a psychology that is fighting hard against such devises Scientists, like other humans, will carry their irrational and self serving practices, which motivate their quest for knowledge, and their desire to build metaphysical systems, all the way to the experimental stage and only a strong community of peer pressure and external criticism can build sufficient safeguards against building theories that are impervious to refutation, or, which comes to the same thing, of being reluctant to accept studies that threaten one s cherished theories Whether such strong institutional studies can be built is an empirical question even if Popper provides a good way for an ideal scientific community to be structured, it is dubious whether it ever will be A reasonable assumption is to assume that science will, hopefully, come to approximate a system of perfect competition, where systems theories, hypotheses can be freely tested Even if most scientists will be reluctant to set their theories to the test, peer pressure can, ideally, force it on them This seems to me to be the only way to rescue Popper s methodology from the pitfalls of human self deception And indeed, Popper knew this he references natural selection and freedom as prerequisites of science, since they foster competition that can lead to the rejection of bad habits and theories Indeed, Popper s insistence on falsifiability ONLY makes sense if embedded into this context But such a context does not preclude pragmatic, instrumental or positivistic theories, either, which seems to make Popper s insistence on a particular methodological commitment metaphysical which he readily admits and, dangerously, superfluous, if RESULTS are what matter And results can be obtained using probabilistic logic, positivistic induction, or any other methodology Even if Popper s original formulation of scientific practice can be criticized, and has been with justification, this is partly missing the point The value of Popper s insight is that even though it contains many outdated and outmoded paragraphs, it opened up a whole new methodology Very few thinkers have been able to set up a new paradigm that challenges the very foundations of our commonly held beliefs and practices, but Popper certainly did, and he did so with rigorous logic Great thinkers are often ones who use reason AGAINST reason, use logic AGAINST logic, i.e to show the limits of reason and logic, and this is exactly the greatest contribution of Popper s critical method He does not leave us with debilitating skepticism, but with exhilarating awareness of the imperfections of our knowledge, the constantly challenging nature of reality, the critical nature of science, and the irrational rationality of our own drives, beliefs, faith and curiosity. If it was 400 pages shorter, I d give it 5 stars Popper makes his point quickly and emphatically on the merits of deductive reasoning versus inductive and its use in scientific research Unfortunately, he continues to give examples to reiterate his point Reading the first 50 pages is good enough But, it s a good book for any and all graduate students in the scientific field to have on a bookshelf particularly at the bench. Popper enjoys a reputation as the greatest philosopher of the 20th Century This book, in which he elucidated the doctrine of falsification still espoused by prominent scientific commentators like Richard Dawkins and endorsed by most scientists, went a long way to establishing that reputation I would go so far as to say that you cannot understand a keystone in the philosophy of science without reading this work.This is not an easy book to read it is a little mathematical here and there, and there is a lengthy section on probability that is frankly a lot of effort There are also copious footnotes and some very mathematical appendixes However, this is philosophical history as it was made and is worth the extra work Popper actually corresponded with the likes of Einstein about the correspondence of his ideas to real science, and modified some of his positions after publication That evolution is reflected in footnotes that acknowledge weaknesses without correcting them This, it seems to me, is a paragon of intellectual honesty.There are insights of startling clarity, and a few which seem counter intuitive on first blush Popper explains very neatly how the falsifiability and therefore the scientific utility of a theory stem from the range of statements that it rules out The theory that planets move in ellipses requires at least three points to falsify a theory that they moved in circles might be falsified with only two Epicycles might have needed hundreds Ad hoc hypotheses make theories complex while increasing the range of statements that they accommodate Ockham s Razor drops out of falsifiability before our eyes Probability statements cannot be falsified by single experiments, but probability in theories is still falsifiable so long as one cannot reliably predict a deviation from probabilistic behaviour Ultimately, the value of such a piece of work must be seen historically, and Popper s doctrine is now orthodoxy This is a classic of Western thought.