Bibliographic record
Abstract
Why is truth always debated? Why should there be right and wrong? Why must there be black when white is so much more pleasant? Everyone has their own definition of truth. But is what is thought and meant by truth really the truth? Who determines the truth? What is the real meaning of truth? It goes back to each person or individual. What is the purpose of seeking the truth? This question could have the same element, why are humans not just happy, why do humans also have to experience sadness? Humans cannot recognise happiness if there is no sadness. Moreover, a truth that is held by Christians is Scripture, as the absolute. Religion also often feels that it is perfect, that it is the element of the world. However, all these perspectives need to be "wait and see", they need to be doubted, as Popper put it. This paper will look at Popper's critical understanding of epistemology. Then it will look at religion from Popper's perspective. He is a person who criticises the logic of knowledge. Even for him, criticism is used as a method to find a truth. Mengapa kebenaran selalu diperdebatkan? Mengapa harus ada yang benar dan ada yang salah? Mengapa harus ada hitam bila putih jauh lebih menyenangkan? Setiap orang memiliki definisinya sendiri tentang kebenaran. Tetapi apakah yang dipikirkan dan dimaksudkan dengan kebenaran itu adalah sungguh sebuah kebenaran? Siapa penentu kebenaran? Apa makna kebenaran sesungguhnya? Kembali lagi kepada personal atau individu masing-masing. Untuk apa dicari sebuah kebenaran? Pertanyaan ini bisa saja memiliki unsur yang sama, mengapa manusia tidak bahagia saja, mengapa manusia juga harus mengalami kesedihan? Manusia tidak bisa mengenal yang namanya kebahagiaan jika tidak ada kesedihan. Terlebih lagi suatu kebenaran yang dipegang oleh Kristen adalah Kitab Suci, sebagai yang absolut. Agama juga seringkali merasa dirinya sempurna, merasa dirinya adalah unsur dunia. Akan tetapi, semua perspektif ini harus “tunggu dulu”, perlu diragukan dulu segala sesuatunya, demikian Popper katakan. Tulisan ini mau melihat pemahaman seorang Popper yang kritis terhadap epistemologi. Kemudian akan melihat agama dari kacamata Popper. Ia adalah orang yang memberi kritik terhadap logika pengetahuan. Bahkan baginya kritik digunakan menjadi metode untuk menemukan sebuah kebenaran.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".