Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
It's no different. Every proof is also a proof in Africa, and it is a hypothetical syllogism: a large premise + a small premise = conclusion (ptz).
A big premise is one of generalization of any kind (e.g., scientific theory).: the theory states that if a white liquid from one test tube is mixed with a red liquid from another test tube, the result is a pink liquid.
A small premise is from experience (for example, a scientific experiment): we take a white test tube – pour it out, we take a red one – pour it out, we get … a green liquid.
Conclusion: the theory is not correct! What was required to PROVE!
Then it all depends on what stage of the life of the paradigm “on mixing liquids” we conducted this experiment. If the paradigm was “in its prime”, then the scientific community will say that the experimenter is crooked and, simply, could not find a test tube with a real white color.
If this paradigm is already “in crisis”, then the scientific community will say: “Here! Again! Proven! The theory is not correct! Probably… ” And begins to build all sorts of zaviralnye hypotheses, why else, in addition to the color of liquids in test tubes, can the resulting effect depend (perhaps on the time of year)?
And finally, someone, in the quiet of the office, will figure out the correct theory (which, let's say, the chemical formula may also matter), take this hypothesis as a big premise, make an experiment as a small premise, and PROVE their hypothesis by announcing the conclusions to the scientific community. And it will be written about in textbooks.
The diagram outlined above is no different from the textbook one: there is no smoke without fire; I see smoke – therefore, there is also fire.
UPD: Any proof is deductive (from general to particular), otherwise it does not happen. The scholastics even called deductive proof ” demonstrative proof.” And by the way, even in D. Hume's great “Treatise on the Human Mind” it is still called the same. And in Kant it is already called – “determining judgment”.