New answers tagged

1

My advice is that it is better to read what Aristotle wrote than to fit what he wrote into a conceptual box such as 'empiricism', 'idealism' and so on. All such boxes - such conceptualisations - turn out on scholarly inspection to be vague and imprecise anyway. This is not a criticism. At all. Just a bit of guidance. Now for your question. If we are going ...


2

To enlarge upon Ted Wrigley's answer: In scientific investigations, there is always a chance that what you think is a signal is instead a random fluctuation. Fortunately, the mathematical tool of statistics furnishes rigorous rules for distinguishing between random flukes and real signals, knowing the repeatability of the signal detector. Those rules furnish ...


1

(courtesy xkcd) Common misperception: replication isn't about the mere act of repeating things. The point of replication is to make a convincing case that a systematic rule exists, such that we can be confident that a given set of actions will produce a given set of results. How many times do you need to stick your finger in a power outlet to convince ...


3

From an epistemic approach, and from the perspective of empiricism, causality (for instance) is a type of knowledge acquired through custom and habit. So, you are asking how many times an event should repeat for it to be considered customary and habitual. That is dependent on multiple factors, not only the subject but also the object and the conditions of ...


Top 50 recent answers are included