Home | Community | Message Board


FreeSpores.com
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Amazon Shop: Delicious Bacon, pH Test Strips

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
OfflineDavid_Scape
Anti Genius
Male

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 878
Loc: U.S. of muthafuckin A.
Last seen: 8 years, 1 month
"Finding the flaw in falsifiability"
    #1169279 - 12/25/02 09:55 AM (14 years, 6 months ago)

Finding the flaw in Falsifiability
"...the "principle of
                                falsifiability". This is the idea that science progresses by "conjectures and
                                refutations" and not (as Bacon suggested) through "inductive
                                generalizations", in which one generalizes on the basis of a sample. [Karl]
                                Popper, in other words, thought that a theory cannot be proved right,
                                only wrong. A theory becomes scientific by exposing itself to the
                                possibility of being proved incorrect..."


:cool: 


--------------------
focusing
Flow
The Enneagram


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRebelSteve33
Amateur Mycologist
Male

Registered: 05/28/02
Posts: 3,774
Loc: Arizona
Re: "Finding the flaw in falsifiability" [Re: David_Scape]
    #1169526 - 12/25/02 12:14 PM (14 years, 6 months ago)

Finding the flaw in falsifiability

Try saying that one ten times fast!!!  :grin: :wink:

-RebelSteve


--------------------
Namaste.


Edited by RebelSteve33 (12/25/02 12:35 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: "Finding the flaw in falsifiability" [Re: David_Scape]
    #1169794 - 12/25/02 03:20 PM (14 years, 6 months ago)

Evidently Dr. Crease is a man who is in love with his science. I think he is treading on dangerous ground. There are various philosophical ideologies regarding science and how it advances. The most notable are probably Karl Popper's Principle of Falsifiability and Thomas Kuhn's Paradigm Shift Hypothesis.

What is your take on the matter?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/13/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: "Finding the flaw in falsifiability" [Re: David_Scape]
    #1170356 - 12/25/02 08:11 PM (14 years, 6 months ago)

Karl Popper... I've run into this guy and have disagreed with him MANY times. He's written alot of definitions/summaries for at least a few Dictionaries of Philosophy. He's hardcore, often reads like Kant (boring as hell and thick... which I think is for the purpose of intimidation), and he's a stodgy old fart. Of course... that's just what I get from most of the stuff I've read by him.

Anyways... I personally don't give two shits about semantical crap like falsifiability. It's like this: I'd rather just toss the old pigskin around rather than figuring out every fucking rule of the game before I start playing. Whatever... to each his own, right?


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: "Finding the flaw in falsifiability" [Re: Sclorch]
    #1170599 - 12/26/02 01:17 AM (14 years, 6 months ago)

:grin: :grin: :grin: :grin:

Interesting Ad Hominems Bud.  I see Popper rankles you.  Which Philosopher of science do you prefer?

Think about your analogy and a good rebuttal to it and you'll see why I disagree.  :smile:

I get a charge out of your passion.  :wink:

Cheers,


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/13/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: "Finding the flaw in falsifiability" [Re: ]
    #1171021 - 12/26/02 08:50 AM (14 years, 6 months ago)

He reminds me of two philosophy professors I've had (and most academics)...

I backed them both into corners on several occasions and they arrogantly played their Ph.D. card on a couple of those occasions... complete bullshit. It's interesting that you mention passion... that's exactly what Popper lacks. He's got a significant amount of "this is the way it is" feel in his writings, too. You know, this is the exact problem Nietzsche had with most academic philosophers of his time. Sometimes Ad Hominem is valid. Like when you can't get a word in because the other guy declares he is an expert on the subject (and who am I to question him?!). Fuck that.

As for my analogy.... it was simple on purpose. Maybe I don't need to figure EVERYTHING out before I start playing (if that were the case, we'd all have to be gods at birth... which is laughable). Maybe I've got a damn good bootstrapping method that tears the best of planning ahead strategies (with equal means) to shreds. Maybe Popper doesn't or wouldn't understand this. Maybe this is something that can't be taught, but can be learned. Maybe someone who understood this would be most likely be able to express their understanding in the majority of their writings.

Maybe I should bring up "the dirty"...
--------------------------------------------
Which Philosopher of science do you prefer?

I have yet to find one who isn't a geek. That is no Ad Hom... it has everything to do with their outlook. Hell, maybe they're just unable to accurately express themselves... I don't know. If there's no passion, something's wrong.


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineDavid_Scape
Anti Genius
Male

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 878
Loc: U.S. of muthafuckin A.
Last seen: 8 years, 1 month
Re: "Finding the flaw in falsifiability" [Re: ]
    #1171183 - 12/26/02 11:02 AM (14 years, 6 months ago)

I dunno, I think I might half agree with Crease...but im confused about a foundational point. 

In the article it(near the bottom) implies that popper believed that:
"The principle of falsifiability was *NOT meant* to be a descrption or a "recipe" for science...".

But it ALSO says that the principle was meant to popper as a "methodological principle - a philsophical test or *MODEL* of what science would look like if reconstructed in logical terms.".

Is this a contradiction or am I misunderstanding? What's the difference bettween "recipe" and "model"? The whole article reads as if the author was focusing on the latter quote. If popper did infact meant the latter, then I agree with Crease.





I was thinking the same thing about his post; passionate! That's what I think most people misunderstand on a message board, eh? they often exchange passion for anger or personal attack. Plus, (and this is hunch.) i think they mistake Swami's sillyness for bitter sarcasm.    :grin: :grin:
 


--------------------
focusing
Flow
The Enneagram


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: "Finding the flaw in falsifiability" [Re: Sclorch]
    #1171338 - 12/26/02 01:16 PM (14 years, 6 months ago)

There is a lot I could say on this but I am limited for time.

I completely understand why a person is turned off by a pedantic pedagogy. But I would never let that blind me to the truth of a teaching. To insist that dry dialectic or orthodoxly teaching basic truths is wrong is to misunderstand the nature of philosophical argumentation. I remember long ago when you asked me if I eve said, "Fuck Dialectic". My answer to that then remains the same. There is a beauty in the rhythm of a well constructed argment as there is in a tightly reasoned dialectic. There does need to be high flown words or emotionally charged words in order to show that the author is completely engaged.

In all likelihood the teachers of the Middle Ages did philosophy a great disservice by teaching philosophical truths as if they were teaching mathematics. But that did not negate the truth that was to be found in them. The bulk of Aristotle's teaching was as sound then as it is today. And not only then but when it flowed from his quill on the day that he wrote it.

I hold those teachers responsible for the nonsense that is what philosophy has become.

It seems that you understand Popper to be Dogmatic. If that it the case you have misunderstood him. Conjectures and Refutations was a beautiful book that summarized Popper's thought. In it he shows why truth is elusive and why dogmatism is wrong. I would have thought you would have really connected with that.

For the record I think there is a time and a place to be dogmatic. There are several Truths that I deem to be unassailable. I know for a fact that reality exists outside the mind for one. I have heard the nonsense from Idealists time out of mind which is where I think they are. It is one thing for a young man to be intrigued with such teachings it is quite another for a mature man to be caught up in them.

You speak of Nietzsche, Campbell, and Zen with high regard. I consider each of them to patent nonsense. Yet, I withhold my judgment until such time as you can explain, clearly and cogently, why you hold them in such high esteem. You are a very intelligent man and for that I suspend my opinion until such time as we can discuss it and them.

Philosophical inquiry is a life long endeavor. One does not need to know all about it before one begins. But that is not to say that one doesn't need the basics just as one needs to know that basics before one begins to play a game of football. If one does not I can guarantee they aren't likely to win. And if winning is associated with learning the Truth you need the same foundation.

Pedantic pedagogy ruined philosophy. Let us hope it didn't injure your spirit of inquiry as well.

Passionate enough for you?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: "Finding the flaw in falsifiability" [Re: David_Scape]
    #1171362 - 12/26/02 01:26 PM (14 years, 6 months ago)

I do not have time at the moment to answer you and Sclorch.  I will give you a complete answer as soon as I have the time.  Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

I recommend that you read Conjectures and Refutations for yourself and not rely on what either I or Dr. Crease says.

Thanks! :smile:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

Amazon Shop: Delicious Bacon, pH Test Strips

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Falsifying evolution?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Mr. Mushrooms 4,424 102 05/06/09 02:45 PM
by Mr. Mushrooms
* The flaw in the scientific method... Ego Death 1,294 16 11/09/08 09:25 PM
by Jax
* Why the scientific method is fundamentally flawed.
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
deCypher 5,442 100 11/07/08 06:11 PM
by Icelander
* James Randi falsifies Data Diaboleros 977 16 04/30/09 04:37 AM
by johnm214
* Post your beliefs and I will show you how they are lies
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
xFrockx 5,097 133 01/13/09 05:54 PM
by Kukaracha
* One do not find truth. Gomp 862 16 03/21/05 11:47 AM
by OldWoodSpecter
* Finding Water? *DELETED* *DELETED*
( 1 2 all )
LunarEclipse 1,258 35 11/12/04 03:51 PM
by deff
* The New Model ... I find it interesting- -very Crobih 1,814 14 10/17/01 06:14 PM
by Crobih

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, CosmicJoke, Jokeshopbeard, DividedQuantum
807 topic views. 3 members, 0 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Phytoextractum
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.029 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 19 queries.