美国宾夕法尼亚论文代写:实证主义者

Keywords:美国宾夕法尼亚论文代写:实证主义者

实证主义者认为不带先入之见的经验观察是获得和解释事实的手段。然而，自从维也纳圈积极追求这一观点以来，这一观点受到了极大的质疑。主要问题包括它不能被科学界成员检查和批评。换句话说，它们是主观的、容易出错的，因此不可靠。[1]这是最初的实证主义的不满,特别是在逻辑实证主义促使卡尔·波普尔发展“可证伪性“他的理论,这一理论不再依赖归纳演绎,承认真理是不可以实现的,除了将理论已驳斥了只有一块的经验证据。证伪也是科学与非科学的分界线，这是一个很有争议的问题。托马斯·库恩，也许是最著名的波普尔作品的批评家，不相信归纳或演绎是科学进步的方法。相反，他介绍了普通科学、革命科学和范式的概念。这两个人的工作之间的差异分析,每个行为的影响的社会科学评论,Imre拉卡托斯的工作,二十分之一世纪的哲学家的数学和科学,强调以说明到底有多少哲学家产生共鸣的社会科学作为一个整体。
美国宾夕法尼亚论文代写:实证主义者
Positivists regarded empirical observation freed of preconceptions as the means by which facts were obtained and explained. This view, however, has been greatly contested since the Vienna Circle’s avid pursuance of it. The main problems include its inability to be checked and criticised by the scientific community members. In other words, they are subjective, fallible and thus unreliable. [1] It is this initial discontent with positivism, especially with logical positivism which prompted Karl Popper to develop his Theory of Falsifiability, a theory which no longer relies on induction but on deduction, which accepts that truth is not attainable and which casts theories aside which have been refuted by only a single piece of empirical evidence. Falsification is also a demarcation between science and non-science, something which has proved to be very controversial. Thomas Kuhn, perhaps the most well known critic of Popper’s work, does not believe in induction or deduction as methods through which science progresses. Instead, he introduces the concept of normal science, revolutionary science and paradigms. The differences between these two men’s work will be analysed, the implications of each for the conduct of social sciences commented upon and the work of Imre Lakatos, a twentieth century philosopher of mathematics and science, highlighted in order to illustrate just how much both philosophers resonate in the social sciences as a whole.