Falsifiability is the ONLY deductive criterion available to science. Let's have a quick run through of what you corectly called a 'sketchy' argument.
- x is important in daily life, therefore x is true }Nope, logical fallacy. It does hold, go read Bertrand Russell's problems of philosophy, the section on probable opinion is what you are searching for here. Let me sum it up because I doubt you will go read it: Nope, induction doesn't prove anything but then again it doesn't need to because we're only living life by what we predict, not what we know.
- Not true, if hypothesis A is that nothing outside of the earth's atmosphere would move (Aristotle) then it only takes one occurance to the contrary for this to be disproven, in this case the proof is followed by the belief, not the way you propose it.
- Popper simply wanted hypothetico-deduction in science and in society in general as this was greater evidence than the classical hypothetico-inductive method. This is simple yes or no knowledge and to dillute it down into simply complications over what he 'hinted at' is pure bullshit. Popper advocated AV¬A logic, this is good logic (learn prop. calculus, -A is the opposite, not the negation, that's just confusing and 'not-A' is ¬his opinion) and determines truth from falsehood.
No personal dig intended but you sound like you've literally just finished reading into the popper/kuhn philosophy of science for A2 sociology and now you're getting rowdy, may be wrong but it seems strongly probable. Willing to be proven wrong (or falsified if you will (love the irony))
- x is important in daily life, therefore x is true }Nope, logical fallacy. It does hold, go read Bertrand Russell's problems of philosophy, the section on probable opinion is what you are searching for here. Let me sum it up because I doubt you will go read it: Nope, induction doesn't prove anything but then again it doesn't need to because we're only living life by what we predict, not what we know.
- Not true, if hypothesis A is that nothing outside of the earth's atmosphere would move (Aristotle) then it only takes one occurance to the contrary for this to be disproven, in this case the proof is followed by the belief, not the way you propose it.
- Popper simply wanted hypothetico-deduction in science and in society in general as this was greater evidence than the classical hypothetico-inductive method. This is simple yes or no knowledge and to dillute it down into simply complications over what he 'hinted at' is pure bullshit. Popper advocated AV¬A logic, this is good logic (learn prop. calculus, -A is the opposite, not the negation, that's just confusing and 'not-A' is ¬his opinion) and determines truth from falsehood.
No personal dig intended but you sound like you've literally just finished reading into the popper/kuhn philosophy of science for A2 sociology and now you're getting rowdy, may be wrong but it seems strongly probable. Willing to be proven wrong (or falsified if you will (love the irony))
Religion is an attempt to answer the philosophical questions of the unphilosophical man.
