The falsifiers consider the scientific theories to be hypothetical and temporary hypotheses that are presented freely and creatively to solve problems that the previous theory faces or to explain the new observational phenomena. Therefore, at the discovery stage, there is no need for induction and generalization of observations. On the other hand, in this perspective, how to discover scientific theories is a good subject for psychology studies, and it does not relate to philosophical topics. At the stage of the arbitration of scientific theories, the falsifying lists rely on this logical point that thousands of true observational statements cannot prove or even confirm a scientific theory. Accordingly, after proposing hypotheses to solve a problem, this hypothesis should be carefully and without any consideration by empirical tests. Hypotheses that are not subject to observational tests are eliminated to replace their new hypotheses. But for the hypotheses that succeed the test, the only thing that can be said is that these hypotheses are currently the best available hypotheses that should await new tests.
According to the falsehoods, science only progresses through guesses and falsifications and approaches the truth, and there is no need for induction in this process. But if, according to Popper, we do not consider scientific hypotheses as anything but speculations, what is the difference between them and one or other superstitions? Popper, in contrast to the logical positivists who defended the meaningful theory, considered a significant problem to be a trivial issue in the philosophy of science, and instead of the problem of distinguishing science from non-science, it was considered an important problem.
Experimental falsity was considered as a criterion for Scientifically introduced theories. The other expression of this hypothesis about the nature of the universe and how it works does not tell us anything. In this view, as far as the theory is more false, it gives us more information about the universe, and it is easier to show that the world does not behave as the theory specifies, and such a theory must be based on a theory that is falsifiable fewer, preferred. One of the important requirements for the falsification of theories is that the theory is clearly expressed because, in the case of ambiguity, in theory, it can always be interpreted in a way that can be reconciled with conflicting empirical evidence and be rescued from falsification. More precisely, the theory is more desirable because it makes the theory more void.
Conspiracy theory or conspiracy illusion is one of the major theories among political theorists and analysts. In addition to the prevalence among many politicians and power holders, many people in the community also use it in their folk analysis, in such a way as to transform into political culture in society. Abrahamian considers conspiracy theory not to believe or not to believe in the appearance of political, social and economic events.
The illusion of conspiracy is a kind of psychological individual and collective illness. Individual illness calls suspicion of everything and everything “paranoia” and collective illness as conspiracy theories. A person who has “illusory conspiracy” in its recent conception considers all the major political events and events of events in the hidden and powerful hands of foreign politics and political, economic and even religious affiliated political organizations. The result of all of these definitions is that conspiracy theory is a theory that explores the events of history and obvious social transformations directly from the conspiracy group’s behind-the-scenes, and assumes that the more obvious and more hopeful hands of the rivals of the individual, society, and nation.
There are couple examples in biological science and medicine can be considered. For Example, What are the biological species? What is death? There are different types of dogs. Some look very similar to the wolf, and others are very small. The dog that looks like a wolf is still a dog and not a wolf. The question is how much difference between races do we consider to be of two different kinds and not of different races belonging to the same species? Various owners are provided. For example, there is a general definition in the general biology book: beings belonging to a biotype have the potential of intermingling (mating) and produce offspring. This definition has many problems. Let’s point out a few points:
1. You will find two rare bugs from the Amazon forests, one male, and one female. To prevent their extinction, They put both of them in the cage, but birds do not interdisciplinary. Does it belong to one species or not? According to the potential definition, there is a possibility of interconnection, but actual, no. How did birds who believed from the beginning that these two birds belonged to the same species, how did they get that vote? He saw the interbreeding of these birds. They may also interbreed, but they did not produce germicidal genes due to genetic defects.
2. The living organisms on Earth, including bacteria, have a non-sexual reproduction. The definition does not clearly apply to this category of applied organisms. How many bacteria are different to be considered as strains of a species or two different species? Suppose that we select the percent difference in the genome as the owner. How is this percentage selected? With the consensus of scientists? Then you have to accept that the boundaries of species are vaguer than what appears at first.And also another example is in the medical field; What is death? In the customary understanding when the heart goes out and the person’s alertness are dead.
But this is a simple definition that faces technological advances. When a person’s brain goes away, then his heart also fails and It will stop working. But the emergence of medical devices has made it possible for a person to has brain death But her heart still works. In the alternative definition of death, The brain is considered the owner of the death of a person. But the problem cannot be solved. Let’s take a few examples of issues that doctors In practice may also encounter them: Which areas of the brain are intended for? For example, suppose that brain is dead. Consider the disease that’s about a half percent of his brain death but her heart is still working with auxiliary devices. Do physicians be allowed to separate patients from devices, Are they helping?