Jove
Visualize
Contact Us

Related Concept Videos

Uncertainty: Overview00:59

Uncertainty: Overview

1.2K
In analytical chemistry, we often perform repetitive measurements to detect and minimize inaccuracies caused by both determinate and indeterminate errors. Despite the cares we take, the presence of random errors means that repeated measurements almost never have exactly the same magnitude. The collective difference between these measurements - observed values - and the estimated or expected value is called uncertainty. Uncertainty is conventionally written after the estimated or expected value.
1.2K
Uncertainty in Measurement: Accuracy and Precision03:37

Uncertainty in Measurement: Accuracy and Precision

96.6K
Scientists typically make repeated measurements of a quantity to ensure the quality of their findings and to evaluate both the precision and the accuracy of their results. Measurements are said to be precise if they yield very similar results when repeated in the same manner. A measurement is considered accurate if it yields a result that is very close to the true or the accepted value. Precise values agree with each other; accurate values agree with a true value. 
96.6K
Scientific Nature of Social Psychology01:30

Scientific Nature of Social Psychology

177
Social psychology is a scientific discipline dedicated to understanding how individuals think, feel, and behave in social contexts. Unlike common sense, which relies on anecdotal experiences and intuition, social psychology employs systematic research and empirical methods to ensure objectivity and reliability. This distinction is fundamental in distinguishing scientifically supported findings from mere speculation.Four fundamental scientific values guide a structured approach to research in...
177
Random and Systematic Errors01:20

Random and Systematic Errors

13.4K
Scientists always try their best to record measurements with the utmost accuracy and precision. However, sometimes errors do occur. These errors can be random or systematic. Random errors are observed due to the inconsistency or fluctuation in the measurement process, or variations in the quantity itself that is being measured. Such errors fluctuate from being greater than or less than the true value in repeated measurements. Consider a scientist measuring the length of an earthworm using a...
13.4K
The Scientific Method02:40

The Scientific Method

63.6K
Research is what makes the difference between facts and opinions. Facts are observable realities, and opinions are personal judgments, conclusions, or attitudes that may or may not be accurate. In the scientific community, facts can be established only using evidence collected through empirical research.
63.6K
The Uncertainty Principle04:08

The Uncertainty Principle

28.6K
Werner Heisenberg considered the limits of how accurately one can measure properties of an electron or other microscopic particles. He determined that there is a fundamental limit to how accurately one can measure both a particle’s position and its momentum simultaneously. The more accurate the measurement of the momentum of a particle is known, the less accurate the position at that time is known and vice versa. This is what is now called the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. He...
28.6K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same journal

A Formalisation of Aristotle's Assertoric Syllogistic in Isabelle/HOL.

Topoi : an international review of philosophy·2026
Same journal

Semantic Foundations of Reductive Reasoning.

Topoi : an international review of philosophy·2026
Same journal

Hinging Prejudices and Stereotypes in Mathematics.

Topoi : an international review of philosophy·2025
Same journal

Receptive Publics in Colonial Contexts: The Case of the Straits Philosophical Society.

Topoi : an international review of philosophy·2025
Same journal

Critical Contextual Empiricism for Busy People: Scientific Argumentation as Epistemic Exchange.

Topoi : an international review of philosophy·2025
Same journal

Capturing Argument in Agent-Based Models.

Topoi : an international review of philosophy·2025
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Oct 14, 2025

Experimental Research Examining How People Can Cope with Uncertainty Through Soft Haptic Sensations
09:07

Experimental Research Examining How People Can Cope with Uncertainty Through Soft Haptic Sensations

Published on: September 16, 2015

9.2K

Disagreement, Certainties, Relativism.

Martin Kusch1

  • 1Department of Philosophy, University of Vienna, Universitätsstrasse 7, 1090 Vienna, Austria.

Topoi : an International Review of Philosophy
|November 8, 2021
PubMed
Summary

This study explores how Ludwig Wittgenstein's philosophy informs discussions on epistemic peer disagreement. It argues that certainties vary, and disagreements over them can be reasonable, depending on the certainty's nature.

Area of Science:

  • Epistemology
  • Philosophy of Mind
  • Philosophy of Language

Background:

  • The "epistemology of peer disagreement" traditionally examines how to respond when an epistemic peer (someone with equal intellectual resources and opportunity for correct judgment) disagrees with one's belief.
  • Ludwig Wittgenstein's later philosophy, particularly his posthumously published work "On Certainty," offers a unique perspective on certainty, knowledge, and belief.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To bridge the "epistemology of peer disagreement" with insights from Wittgenstein's "On Certainty."
  • To analyze the nature of certainty and its implications for how we understand and respond to disagreements among epistemic peers.

Main Methods:

  • Philosophical analysis of key concepts in "On Certainty."
  • Interpreting Wittgenstein's views on certainty, belief, and groundless beliefs.
Keywords:
CertaintiesDisagreementPeer disagreementRelativismWittgenstein

More Related Videos

Split Point Analysis and Uncertainty Quantification of Thermal-Optical Organic/Elemental Carbon Measurements
10:22

Split Point Analysis and Uncertainty Quantification of Thermal-Optical Organic/Elemental Carbon Measurements

Published on: September 7, 2019

8.4K
Ole Isacson: Development of New Therapies for Parkinson's Disease
23:53

Ole Isacson: Development of New Therapies for Parkinson's Disease

Published on: April 29, 2007

8.1K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Oct 14, 2025

Experimental Research Examining How People Can Cope with Uncertainty Through Soft Haptic Sensations
09:07

Experimental Research Examining How People Can Cope with Uncertainty Through Soft Haptic Sensations

Published on: September 16, 2015

9.2K
Split Point Analysis and Uncertainty Quantification of Thermal-Optical Organic/Elemental Carbon Measurements
10:22

Split Point Analysis and Uncertainty Quantification of Thermal-Optical Organic/Elemental Carbon Measurements

Published on: September 7, 2019

8.4K
Ole Isacson: Development of New Therapies for Parkinson's Disease
23:53

Ole Isacson: Development of New Therapies for Parkinson's Disease

Published on: April 29, 2007

8.1K
  • Applying these interpretations to established theories of peer disagreement.

    • Main Results:

    • Argues that not all certainties are groundless; many are beliefs without a common essence.
    • Asserts that an epistemic peer does not need to share all of one's certainties.
    • Demonstrates that the appropriate response to disagreement over a certainty (e.g., steadfastness, conciliationism) is contingent on the type of certainty, sometimes necessitating a relativistic approach.
    • Establishes the possibility of reasonable, mutually recognized peer disagreement concerning certainty.

    Conclusions:

    • Wittgenstein's philosophy provides a valuable framework for understanding peer disagreement over certainties.
    • Recognizing the diverse nature of certainties allows for more nuanced and appropriate responses to epistemic peer disagreement.
    • This approach enriches both systematic and interpretative dimensions of the peer disagreement debate.