derek-thomas/squad-v1.1-t5-question-generation huggingface dataset:
The creation–evolution controversy in the United States raises the issue of whether creationistic ideas may be legitimately called science and whether evolution itself may be legitimately called science. In the debate, both sides and even courts in their decisions have frequently invoked Popper's criterion of falsifiability (see Daubert standard). In this context, passages written by Popper are frequently quoted in which he speaks about such issues himself. For example, he famously stated "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program—a possible framework for testable scientific theories." He continued:

Question: Popper's philosophy is often applied in what political debate concerning biological science? Question: Which of Popper's notions is often invoked in creation-evolution debates? Question: What kind of research program did Popper call Darwinism? Question: What phrase did Popper use to describe Darwinism's relation to proper falsifiable theories?
Popper had his own sophisticated views on evolution that go much beyond what the frequently-quoted passages say. In effect, Popper agreed with some of the points of both creationists and naturalists, but also disagreed with both views on crucial aspects. Popper understood the universe as a creative entity that invents new things, including life, but without the necessity of something like a god, especially not one who is pulling strings from behind the curtain. He said that evolution must, as the creationists say, work in a goal-directed way but disagreed with their view that it must necessarily be the hand of god that imposes these goals onto the stage of life.

Question: What kind of an entity did Popper believe the universe to be? Question: Along with some creationists, Popper believed that evolution must have what quality to its progress? Question: Popper disagreed with creationists that whose hand must be directing evolution?
Instead, he formulated the spearhead model of evolution, a version of genetic pluralism. According to this model, living organisms themselves have goals, and act according to these goals, each guided by a central control. In its most sophisticated form, this is the brain of humans, but controls also exist in much less sophisticated ways for species of lower complexity, such as the amoeba. This control organ plays a special role in evolution—it is the "spearhead of evolution". The goals bring the purpose into the world. Mutations in the genes that determine the structure of the control may then cause drastic changes in behaviour, preferences and goals, without having an impact on the organism's phenotype. Popper postulates that such purely behavioural changes are less likely to be lethal for the organism compared to drastic changes of the phenotype.

Question: What is the name of Popper's model of evolution? Question: Popper's model of evolution is part of what family of models? Question: What directs the actions of organisms in Popper's biological model? Question: Organisms' goals shift along with which notable genetic process?
Popper contrasts his views with the notion of the "hopeful monster" that has large phenotype mutations and calls it the "hopeful behavioural monster". After behaviour has changed radically, small but quick changes of the phenotype follow to make the organism fitter to its changed goals. This way it looks as if the phenotype were changing guided by some invisible hand, while it is merely natural selection working in combination with the new behaviour. For example, according to this hypothesis, the eating habits of the giraffe must have changed before its elongated neck evolved. Popper contrasted this view as "evolution from within" or "active Darwinism" (the organism actively trying to discover new ways of life and being on a quest for conquering new ecological niches), with the naturalistic "evolution from without" (which has the picture of a hostile environment only trying to kill the mostly passive organism, or perhaps segregate some of its groups).

Question: Which view of evolution emphasizing large changes in organisms' phenotypes does Popper oppose to his own? Question: How does Popper describe the "monsters" that evolve in his view of evolutionary processes? Question: Which aspect of organisms changes most radically in the process of evolution Popper envisions? Question: What kind of Darwinism does Popper subscribe to in contrast to the naturalistic kind?
About the creation-evolution controversy, Popper wrote that he considered it "a somewhat sensational clash between a brilliant scientific hypothesis concerning the history of the various species of animals and plants on earth, and an older metaphysical theory which, incidentally, happened to be part of an established religious belief" with a footnote to the effect that "[he] agree[s] with Professor C.E. Raven when, in his Science, Religion, and the Future, 1943, he calls this conflict "a storm in a Victorian tea-cup"; though the force of this remark is perhaps a little impaired by the attention he pays to the vapours still emerging from the cup—to the Great Systems of Evolutionist Philosophy, produced by Bergson, Whitehead, Smuts, and others."

Question: What controversy involving science did Popper believe was sensationalized because of its connection with religion? Question: What term does Popper use when describing creationism as a type of theory? Question: Which professor cited by Popper described the creation-evolution debate as "a storm in a Victorian tea-cup?" Question: In which year did C.E. Raven publish the remarks on creation-evolution quoted by Popper?
In an interview that Popper gave in 1969 with the condition that it shall be kept secret until after his death, he summarised his position on God as follows: "I don't know whether God exists or not. ... Some forms of atheism are arrogant and ignorant and should be rejected, but agnosticism—to admit that we don't know and to search—is all right. ... When I look at what I call the gift of life, I feel a gratitude which is in tune with some religious ideas of God. However, the moment I even speak of it, I am embarrassed that I may do something wrong to God in talking about God." He objected to organised religion, saying "it tends to use the name of God in vain", noting the danger of fanaticism because of religious conflicts: "The whole thing goes back to myths which, though they may have a kernel of truth, are untrue. Why then should the Jewish myth be true and the Indian and Egyptian myths not be true?" In a letter unrelated to the interview, he stressed his tolerant attitude: "Although I am not for religion, I do think that we should show respect for anybody who believes honestly."

Question: In which year did Popper give a secret interview concerning his views about God? Question: Which term for his religious outlook did Popper prefer? Question: What did Popper believe were at the heart of religious disagreements, and should not be the cause of as much conflict as they are? Question: Although he opposed organized religion, what attitude did Popper think should be taken toward it:
Popper played a vital role in establishing the philosophy of science as a vigorous, autonomous discipline within philosophy, through his own prolific and influential works, and also through his influence on his own contemporaries and students. Popper founded in 1946 the Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method at the London School of Economics and there lectured and influenced both Imre Lakatos and Paul Feyerabend, two of the foremost philosophers of science in the next generation of philosophy of science. (Lakatos significantly modified Popper's position,:1 and Feyerabend repudiated it entirely, but the work of both is deeply influenced by Popper and engaged with many of the problems that Popper set.)

Question: What branch of philosophy did Popper advance the most? Question: Which department did Popper found at the London School of Economics? Question: Where did Popper establish a university department for the philosophy of science in 1946? Question: Which two major philosophers of science learned a great deal from Popper at the London School Economics? Question: What did Paul Feyerabend ultimate do to Popper's philosophy of science?
While there is some dispute as to the matter of influence, Popper had a long-standing and close friendship with economist Friedrich Hayek, who was also brought to the London School of Economics from Vienna. Each found support and similarities in the other's work, citing each other often, though not without qualification. In a letter to Hayek in 1944, Popper stated, "I think I have learnt more from you than from any other living thinker, except perhaps Alfred Tarski." Popper dedicated his Conjectures and Refutations to Hayek. For his part, Hayek dedicated a collection of papers, Studies in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics, to Popper, and in 1982 said, "...ever since his Logik der Forschung first came out in 1934, I have been a complete adherent to his general theory of methodology."

Question: Which other Austrian scholar and friend of Popper also worked near him at the London School of Economics? Question: What was Hayek's academic field? Question: In which year did Popper write Hayek a letter expressing his intellectual debt to him? Question: Who did Popper say was the only thinker who might have had a greater influence on him than Hayek? Question: Which of Hayek's publications was dedicated to Popper?
He does not argue that any such conclusions are therefore true, or that this describes the actual methods of any particular scientist.[citation needed] Rather, it is recommended as an essential principle of methodology that, if enacted by a system or community, will lead to slow but steady progress of a sort (relative to how well the system or community enacts the method). It has been suggested that Popper's ideas are often mistaken for a hard logical account of truth because of the historical co-incidence of their appearing at the same time as logical positivism, the followers of which mistook his aims for their own.

Question: Popper has stressed that his description of scientific methodology should not be mistaken to apply to whom? Question: At what level does Popper indicate his view of scientific methodology applies? Question: What kind of progress does science make given the methodology Popper describes? Question: What other contemporaneous school of thought is often confused with Popper's own contributions?
The Quine-Duhem thesis argues that it's impossible to test a single hypothesis on its own, since each one comes as part of an environment of theories. Thus we can only say that the whole package of relevant theories has been collectively falsified, but cannot conclusively say which element of the package must be replaced. An example of this is given by the discovery of the planet Neptune: when the motion of Uranus was found not to match the predictions of Newton's laws, the theory "There are seven planets in the solar system" was rejected, and not Newton's laws themselves. Popper discussed this critique of naïve falsificationism in Chapters 3 and 4 of The Logic of Scientific Discovery. For Popper, theories are accepted or rejected via a sort of selection process. Theories that say more about the way things appear are to be preferred over those that do not; the more generally applicable a theory is, the greater its value. Thus Newton's laws, with their wide general application, are to be preferred over the much more specific "the solar system has seven planets".[dubious – discuss]

Question: What thesis says a scientific hypothesis is not testable in isolation from its system of theories? Question: The planet Uranus' apparent failure to follow Newton's laws led to the discovery of which planet? Question: Which of Popper's works responds to critiques of naive falsificationism? Question: According to Popper, the scientific selection process favors which type of theory?
Popper claimed to have recognised already in the 1934 version of his Logic of Discovery a fact later stressed by Kuhn, "that scientists necessarily develop their ideas within a definite theoretical framework", and to that extent to have anticipated Kuhn's central point about "normal science". (But Popper criticised what he saw as Kuhn's relativism.) Also, in his collection Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (Harper & Row, 1963), Popper writes, "Science must begin with myths, and with the criticism of myths; neither with the collection of observations, nor with the invention of experiments, but with the critical discussion of myths, and of magical techniques and practices. The scientific tradition is distinguished from the pre-scientific tradition in having two layers. Like the latter, it passes on its theories; but it also passes on a critical attitude towards them. The theories are passed on, not as dogmas, but rather with the challenge to discuss them and improve upon them."

Question: Popper believed he had already discussed similar ideas to Kuhn's about scientific communities in what work? Question: What aspect of Kuhn's thinking did Popper criticize? Question: What did Popper say must be the beginning phase of science? Question: According to Popper, what second layer does scientific inquiry have that pre-scientific inquiry does not?
Another objection is that it is not always possible to demonstrate falsehood definitively, especially if one is using statistical criteria to evaluate a null hypothesis. More generally it is not always clear, if evidence contradicts a hypothesis, that this is a sign of flaws in the hypothesis rather than of flaws in the evidence. However, this is a misunderstanding of what Popper's philosophy of science sets out to do. Rather than offering a set of instructions that merely need to be followed diligently to achieve science, Popper makes it clear in The Logic of Scientific Discovery that his belief is that the resolution of conflicts between hypotheses and observations can only be a matter of the collective judgment of scientists, in each individual case.

Question: What kind of criteria frequently used in science complicates the definitiveness of some hypotheses' falsification? Question: What other flaws complicate the problem of identifying faulty scientific hypotheses? Question: According to Popper, what resolves conflicting hypotheses and observations in the long run?
In a book called Science Versus Crime, Houck writes that Popper's falsificationism can be questioned logically: it is not clear how Popper would deal with a statement like "for every metal, there is a temperature at which it will melt." The hypothesis cannot be falsified by any possible observation, for there will always be a higher temperature than tested at which the metal may in fact melt, yet it seems to be a valid scientific hypothesis. These examples were pointed out by Carl Gustav Hempel. Hempel came to acknowledge that Logical Positivism's verificationism was untenable, but argued that falsificationism was equally untenable on logical grounds alone. The simplest response to this is that, because Popper describes how theories attain, maintain and lose scientific status, individual consequences of currently accepted scientific theories are scientific in the sense of being part of tentative scientific knowledge, and both of Hempel's examples fall under this category. For instance, atomic theory implies that all metals melt at some temperature.

Question: Which book by Houck points out logical flaws in Popper's falsificationism? Question: Who wrote the book Science Versus Crime which challenged the logic of falsificationism? Question: Who argued that Popper's falsificationism was just as logically untenable as Logical Positivism's verificationism?
In 2004, philosopher and psychologist Michel ter Hark (Groningen, The Netherlands) published a book, called Popper, Otto Selz and the rise of evolutionary epistemology, in which he claimed that Popper took some of his ideas from his tutor, the German psychologist Otto Selz. Selz never published his ideas, partly because of the rise of Nazism, which forced him to quit his work in 1933, and the prohibition of referring to Selz' work. Popper, the historian of ideas and his scholarship, is criticised in some academic quarters for his rejection of Plato, Hegel and Marx.

Question: Who claimed Otto Selz deserved credit for ideas published by Popper? Question: What is the name of the 2004 paper that links Popper's work to that of his tutor Otto Selz? Question: Which German psychologist and tutor of Popper may have originated some of Popper's ideas? Question: What contributed to Otto Selz's cessation of work in 1933? Question: Popper is criticized for dismissing which major philosophers in his work?
According to John N. Gray, Popper held that "a theory is scientific only in so far as it is falsifiable, and should be given up as soon as it is falsified." By applying Popper's account of scientific method, Gray's Straw Dogs states that this would have "killed the theories of Darwin and Einstein at birth." When they were first advanced, Gray claims, each of them was "at odds with some available evidence; only later did evidence become available that gave them crucial support." Against this, Gray seeks to establish the irrationalist thesis that "the progress of science comes from acting against reason."

Question: Which work by John Gray challenges Popper's falsificationism? Question: Which two prominent scientists advanced theories that John N. Gray claims would never have survived the scientific method Popper describes? Question: According to Gray, what should have falsified Einstein and Darwin's theories when first proposed? Question: What kind of thesis does Gray advance about scientific progress?
Gray does not, however, give any indication of what available evidence these theories were at odds with, and his appeal to "crucial support" illustrates the very inductivist approach to science that Popper sought to show was logically illegitimate. For, according to Popper, Einstein's theory was at least equally as well corroborated as Newton's upon its initial conception; they both equally well accounted for all the hitherto available evidence. Moreover, since Einstein also explained the empirical refutations of Newton's theory, general relativity was immediately deemed suitable for tentative acceptance on the Popperian account. Indeed, Popper wrote, several decades before Gray's criticism, in reply to a critical essay by Imre Lakatos:

Question: Gray's approach aligns with which approach that Popper himself considered untenable? Question: In contrast to Gray, which theory did Popper argue was at least equally consistent with Newton's on the available evidence? Question: What did general relativity do that made it tentatively acceptable when it was proposed? Question: A possible rebuttal to Gray's argument appears in Popper's reply to which philosopher?
Such a theory would be true with higher probability, because it cannot be attacked so easily: to falsify the first one, it is sufficient to find that the sun has stopped rising; to falsify the second one, one additionally needs the assumption that the given day has not yet been reached. Popper held that it is the least likely, or most easily falsifiable, or simplest theory (attributes which he identified as all the same thing) that explains known facts that one should rationally prefer. His opposition to positivism, which held that it is the theory most likely to be true that one should prefer, here becomes very apparent. It is impossible, Popper argues, to ensure a theory to be true; it is more important that its falsity can be detected as easily as possible.

Question: Which type of theory is most falsifiable? Question: What school of philosophy does Popper's thinking on induction oppose? Question: For Popper, knowing that a theory is true is what? Question: What quality of a useful theory must be easily detectable?
In his early years Popper was impressed by Marxism, whether of Communists or socialists. An event that happened in 1919 had a profound effect on him: During a riot, caused by the Communists, the police shot several unarmed people, including some of Popper's friends, when they tried to free party comrades from prison. The riot had, in fact, been part of a plan by which leaders of the Communist party with connections to Béla Kun tried to take power by a coup; Popper did not know about this at that time. However, he knew that the riot instigators were swayed by the Marxist doctrine that class struggle would produce vastly more dead men than the inevitable revolution brought about as quickly as possible, and so had no scruples to put the life of the rioters at risk to achieve their selfish goal of becoming the future leaders of the working class. This was the start of his later criticism of historicism. Popper began to reject Marxist historicism, which he associated with questionable means, and later socialism, which he associated with placing equality before freedom (to the possible disadvantage of equality).

Question: Who instigated the 1919 riot that reshaped Popper's political views? Question: Which historically significant communist activist was associated with the 1919 riots in which some of Popper's friends were killed? Question: The 1919 riot involving Popper's comrades was part of what larger political move? Question: What did the Marxist rioters believe would cause more death and suffering than their own agitation? Question: Popper's critique of which doctrine has its origins in first-hand observation of communist agitation?
A mandolin (Italian: mandolino pronounced [mandoˈliːno]; literally "small mandola") is a musical instrument in the lute family and is usually plucked with a plectrum or "pick". It commonly has four courses of doubled metal strings tuned in unison (8 strings), although five (10 strings) and six (12 strings) course versions also exist. The courses are normally tuned in a succession of perfect fifths. It is the soprano member of a family that includes the mandola, octave mandolin, mandocello and mandobass.

Question: What country did the mandolin originate from? Question: What does mandolin translate to? Question: What musical family does the mandolin come from? Question: How is the mandolin usually played? Question: How many courses does a mandolin commonly have?
There are many styles of mandolin, but four are common, the Neapolitan or round-backed mandolin, the carved-top mandolin and the flat-backed mandolin. The round-back has a deep bottom, constructed of strips of wood, glued together into a bowl. The carved-top or arch-top mandolin has a much shallower, arched back, and an arched top—both carved out of wood. The flat-backed mandolin uses thin sheets of wood for the body, braced on the inside for strength in a similar manner to a guitar. Each style of instrument has its own sound quality and is associated with particular forms of music. Neapolitan mandolins feature prominently in European classical music and traditional music. Carved-top instruments are common in American folk music and bluegrass music. Flat-backed instruments are commonly used in Irish, British and Brazilian folk music. Some modern Brazilian instruments feature an extra fifth course tuned a fifth lower than the standard fourth course.

Question: What are the four common styles of mandolins? Question: Which style of mandolin has a shallower, arched back, and arched top? Question: What is the round-back mandolin made of? Question: Which form of music do Neapolitan mandolins feature? Question: Which mandolin is commin in American Folk music and blue grass music?