“Plato and Nightingale”

After reading the essay/blog post: “Plato and Nightingale: The Allegory of the Cave” answer the following questions: What is one similarity between Florence Nightingale’s philosophy and Plato’s philosophy?
Source: https://philnurse.wordpress.com/2017/08/14/plato-and-nightingale-the-allegory-of-the-cave/

Sample Solution

since it is comparable to the nullification of a fundamental articulation, viz. to the refutation of r’p”
3.5 Immunizing Stratagem or Conventionalism
Karl Popper uses this term-immunizing stratagem to distinguish the critical and ever progressive nature of scientific theories, from the dogmatic tendencies of pseudo-science. For instance; Kepler’s, Newton’s and Einstein’s theories are highly risky because they possess a higher level of informative content this is because they are less probable and they are very open to criticism. On the other hand, Freud’s Psychoanalysis, Adler’s individual psychology and Marxism do not accept criticisms of their theories but do everything possible to see to its confirmation and its freedom from falsification. Thus, Karl Popper holds that; “They have all the earmarks of being ready to clarify especially everything that happens inside the fields to which they allude.” While Freud in his analysis or Adler in his individual brain research joined vaccinating stratagems from the earliest starting point and does not require any inoculation, to make it verifiable; Marxism was initially an observationally testable hypothesis yet since Marx’s prediction (Marx anticipated that the principal communist upset would occur in the mechanically most created society; this happened in modernly in reverse Russia. He also predicted that there will be no conflict of interest among socialist countries; the Russian-Chinese conflict refuted this), failed to come true, the theory had been recast in the form of empirically irrefutable metaphysics. Base on this, Karl Popper argues that; “This move spared Marxism from negation and inoculated it against further assaults” In the same vain, Popper reasoned that Darwinian evolutionary theory is an unscientific ‘metaphysical research program.’ For this reason, Karl Popper holds a serious case against the inductivist; this is because it includes so many unscientific theories as scientific.
3.6 Background Knowledge
In Popper’s view, Background knowledge constitutes those things which a scientist necessarily, accepts as unproblematic while conducting an experiment. E.g., in conducting an experiment the scientist necessarily assumes that the apparatus used is working in order. Logically a theory that is in conflict with observational or experimental evidence is conclusively falsified. This is on account of “di