Human beings have various ways of apprehending, organizing and representing reality:
And various levels or degrees of knowledge:
- Common Sense (knowledge vulgar and sloppy)
- Rigorous Knowledge (rationally based)
What distinguishes, first, the science of common knowledge? Method
- Built spontaneously and immediately.
- Sources: sensory data, social transmission (collective experience and prejudices of the community), life experience.
- Functionality: pragmatic and inclusive.
- Limits: lack of objectivity (does not reach a true explanation of reality).
- Knowledge systematic and methodical. Uses reasoning, evidence and statements.
- You own methodological processes to explain natural phenomena or social.
- Purpose: to formulate laws and theories that explain the real.
- Allows control of Man and Nature ...
Characteristics of Scientific Knowledge
Always starts from a theory or explanatory model.
Uses an unambiguous language (ideal mathematical language)
Methodical and objective phenomena (delimiting a specific object of research and a rigorous method of research)
Explanation operative - establishment of conditions / logical-mathematical operations that allow an experimental and control responses independent of the subject who performs the comments or xperimentações (= creating a model that reproduces the reality)
Explanation and practice needs
Successive approximation to the truth?
The Scientific Method:
- Effectiveness Research
- Credibility of Results
- Criteria of distinction in scientific and nonscientific
The emergence of the Scientific Method:
XVII - epistemological break that gives rise to modern science (Bacon, Galileo, Descartes, Newton)
The creation of modern physics - observation and experimentation + mathematization (quantification) of the real
The Inductive Method / Experimental - Phases:
Starting point - notice the formulation of a hypothesis testing (hypothesis verification) to confirm the hypothesis transformation LAW
The law allows the prediction of the future (inductive reasoning is the basis of the law)
But is the starting point of scientific research is always watching?
Hypothetical-Deductive Method (phases):
Starting point - the formulation of a fact-problem (the observation is guided by a problem) to the formulation of a hypothesis to infer the consequences of the hypothesis to submission to the consequences of such verification / confirmation of the experimental confirmation of the hypothesis = consequences of the Law (set theories of law =)
- Research or scientific research presupposes the covenant of deductive and inductive reasoning. The alliance of theory and confirmed by observation or experimentation.
- The observation and experimentation assume the construction of models that reproduce the real.
Falsificationism (Karl Popper)
The problem of demarcation
What distinguishes scientific theories from non-science is falsifiability.
Contrary to the traditional criterion of veraficabilidade, Popper argues that science is only a theory to be falsifiable.
Ex: "The universe has a divine origin" can not be falsifiable, so it's not a scientific theory. Since "The heat expands bodies" can be falsifiable, so it is a scientific theory.
The more chances you have to falsify a theory, the greater the scope or empirical content.
Ex: "The metals swell when heated" has greater empirical content than "Iron expands when heated."
MODEL OF SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Popper argues a hypothetical-deductive model of conjectures and refutations.
1 - The problems are the starting point of scientific method.
2 - Theories are developed through a process of creating conjectures.
3 - Theories, once developed, must undergo a process to test its falsifiability (or possible refutation).
4 - should be identified new problems created by the theories.
When (or while) does not arise evidence against a theory, that is, as it stands the test of falsifiability, the theory is confirmed or succeeds.
You can not prove the truth of a theory, one can confirm a theory.
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE
Science progresses by trial and error, ie, by conjectures and refutations. Therefore, the induction is not essential in scientific knowledge.
It is not by induction that proves the value of scientific theories, but attempts to refute.
In this case, the deduction of the consequences is critical because it is these consequences that are confronted with observation.