The basic idea is: - Making an observation (that inspires a problem). - Generating a hypothesis to explain the observation. - Testing the hypothesis by performing an experiment. From a hypothesis, we infer an observational consequence. We produce the hypothesis and search the consequence. If the consequence is observed, the hypothesis is confirmed. If the consequence is not observed, the hypothesis is disconfirmed. - If the hypothesis is falsified, an other hypothesis should be generated and tested. - If the hypothesis is verified it becomes a theory. Confirmation (The piece fits) What is confirmation? We predict observations (O) that are consequent to a hypothesis (H). If the predictions turns out to be correct, they confirm the hypothesis. If H, then O O Therefore, (Probably) H Problem: This is a simplified account: confirmation is not verification. No matter how many times I
data are in error. If we can become sensitive to situations in which the social proof automatic pilot is working with inaccurate information, we can disengage the mechanism and grasp the controls when we need to. Sabotage There are two types of situations in which incorrect data cause the principle of so- cial proof to give us poor counsel. The first occurs when the social evidence has been purposely falsified. Invariably these situations are manufactured by exploiters intent on creating the impression-reality be damned-that a multitude is per- forming the way the exploiters want us to perform. The canned laughter of TV comedy shows is one variety of faked data of this sort, but there is a great deal more, and much of the fakery is strikingly obvious. For instance, canned responses are not unique to the electronic media or even to the electronic age
so will certainly increase the complexity of the experience of yourself (as well as your psychiatrist's income) but, in this way, you will not end up with the subject, the experiencer who is prior to all experience but without whom there would be no experience. So who is the experiencer? You are. And who are you? Consciousness. And what is consciousness? This question cannot be answered. The moment you answer it, you have falsified it, made it into another object. Consciousness, the traditional word for which is spirit, cannot be known in the normal sense of the word, and seeing it is futile. All knowing is within the realm of duality – subject and object, the knower and the known. the subject, the I, the knower without which nothing could be known, perceived, thought, or felt, must remain forever unknowable. This is because the I has no form. Only forms can be known, and yet without the
hostile actions, and demanded the formation of a new government acceptable to them. The Estonian leaders, refraining from an armed struggle, assured their loyalty to the Tartu Peace Treaty (1920). Estonian communists (the whole group consisted of no more than 150 members), acted immediately, with the support of the occupying Soviet troops, power was transferred into the hands of the communists in the same month. After crudely falsified “elections” the new authorities declared Estonia a Soviet Republic and in August it was officially incorporated into the USSR. Everything was to be reshaped according to the Soviet model; it included terror, imprisonment and deportation. The eminent statesmen General Johan Laidoner (Commander-in-Chief of the Estonian Army), President Konstantin Päts, Premier Kaarel Eenpalu, ex-Premier Jaan Tõnisson and many other prominent public figures
It may seem of little practical consequence whether there are any sentences that occupy the quaint philosophers' category of "analytic." But Quine's rejection of analyticity does have one interesting little repercussion. Suppose two English sentences, S1 and S2, are precisely synonymous. Then the conditional sentence "If S1, then S2" should be analytic, having the content "If [this state of affairs], then [this very same state of affairs]," which could hardly be falsified by any empirical development. So, if there are no analytic sentences, no two English sentences are precisely synonymous, not even "Bambi's mother was a doe" and "Bambi's mother was a female deer."5 It gets worse. Here is Quine's second challenge to the positivists, and indeed to practically everyone. It is not just that there are no analytic sen- tences, and not just that no two sentences are synonymous. It is that there is no such thing as meaning
annaabi.ee 
