Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

The Spore Depot
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

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!

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
"Finding the flaw in falsifiability"
    #1169279 -

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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: "Finding the flaw in falsifiability" [Re: David_Scape]
    #1169526 -

Finding the flaw in falsifiability

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

-RebelSteve


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

Edited by RebelSteve33 (12/25/02 10:35 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: "Finding the flaw in falsifiability" [Re: David_Scape]
    #1169794 -

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?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: "Finding the flaw in falsifiability" [Re: David_Scape]
    #1170356 -

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...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: "Finding the flaw in falsifiability" [Re: Sclorch]
    #1170599 -

: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,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: "Finding the flaw in falsifiability" [Re: ]
    #1171021 -

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...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: "Finding the flaw in falsifiability" [Re: ]
    #1171183 -

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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: "Finding the flaw in falsifiability" [Re: Sclorch]
    #1171338 -

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?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: "Finding the flaw in falsifiability" [Re: David_Scape]
    #1171362 -

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:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The New Model ... I find it interesting- -very Crobih 2,433 14 10/17/01 04:14 PM
by Crobih
* An example of using the principles of logic.
( 1 2 all )		 Anonymous 3,741 29 07/24/03 12:32 AM
by Sclorch
* Fundamental Principle(s) Autonomous 1,534 14 08/09/03 05:33 AM
by Anonymous
* anything man-made is flawed because it tries to be perfect
( 1 2 all )		 Adamist 3,358 22 07/03/03 08:06 PM
by David_Scape
* Is mysticism as flawed as religion? mirror_saw 1,692 17 08/21/02 06:11 PM
by Sclorch
* You have flaws... deal with it. Sclorch 2,624 17 07/13/01 08:26 AM
by lucid_dreams
* The Anthropic Principle Swami 1,013 8 07/19/03 02:26 AM
by Grav
* When you can't find meaning in school...
( 1 2 3 all )		 World Spirit 4,174 41 02/10/03 11:42 PM
by PDU

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
949 topic views. 0 members, 44 guests and 28 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.022 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 14 queries.