Why does empirical inquiry proceed by disconfirmation—looking for what is not the case? Why not focus primarily, if not exclusively, on confirmation?
What will be an ideal response
Empirical confirmation reasons using the same pattern as Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. "If A, then B. B. So, therefore A." This pattern is not helpful for sorting out metaphysical (untestable) claims about the world from testable claims. We can plug "Whatever nonsense I want" for "A" and use "The sun comes up in the east" for "B." If science reasoned using confirmation primarily or only, then "Whatever nonsense I want" would be scientifically confirmed each day the sun came up in the east.
You might also like to view...
Berkeley argued against ________ that there was really no distinction between ________ qualities and ________ qualities
a. Locke; primary; secondary b. None of these choices. c. Hume; elemental; composite d. Locke; basic; substantial e. Descartes; mental; temporal
In the 1980s, the prime rationale for takeovers was which of the following?
A. company valuation was accurate. B. companies were overvalued. C. company valuation was not a prime consideration. D. companies were undervalued.
One problem with relativism, according to the author of the text, is that it does not enable us to be critical
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
Rachels notes that the Cultural Differences Argument is not sound. What does this
mean?
a. The premise of the argument is false. b. The conclusion does not follow from the premise. c. There is a suppressed premise. d. All of the above