|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027 |
Dear Dr. Bill,
Goddam philosophers snow me under. I had not thought of the "engines" writer
as a philosophy enthusiast. I don't think you need to be a philosophy enthusiast to try and find a reliable criterion to distinguish science from other products of the human mind. Popper is often quoted as having found the definitive solution. Yet even to accept a falsification of a given hypothesis, you need to believe certain premises, e.g. about causality. Furthermore, many fall into the trap of believing that there is a finite number of alternative hypotheses: so if all but one are falsified, the remaining one would have to be true..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,692
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,692 |
Furthermore, many fall into the trap of believing that there is a finite number of alternative hypotheses: so if all but one are falsified, the remaining one would have to be true..
From that well known philosopher, Sherlock Holmes:
“When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,535 Likes: 1
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,535 Likes: 1 |
“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
You will do me a middle-sized favor by telling me which story that's from. I've been quoting for some time my "favorite" Sherlock Holmes pronouncement, as "It is futile to theorize in advance of the data." and been unable to locate it. It sounds as if you have the accurate version, and I would appreciate the identification !
And following this thread it still isn't quite clear to me - is "falsifiable" then the same thing as "verifiable" (except for half-full-half-empty considerations), and both of them are surrogates for "susceptible of being proved true or false"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
And following this thread it still isn't quite clear to me - is "falsifiability" then the same thing as "verifiability" except for half-full-half-empty considerations?
Falsification and Verification are diametrically opposed models of what constitutes science. Verificationism is what the positivists promoted. A theory is scientific if it can be verified - something along the lines of - if you design an experiment under which your theory explains the data, then you have verified your theory.
As Popper pointed out, however, this ignores Humes objection. How can you prove there are no white crows? How many instances of a thing must you see, before you can deduce that all things are like the ones you have witnessed. Answer: there is no logical reason to deduce this.
In Popper's view, everything is potentially false. However, you're justified in tentatively accepting any view, that has not been disproven.
Popper's views are currently being reevaluted by luminaries like Paul Kurtz and Martin Gardner. Apparently, few if any scientists actually work like this. (I think they miss the point - which is that we're talking about a logical basis for a system, not a methodology.)
k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
I think, in a sense, nothing in science can ever be proven true. We can only say that such and such seems to represent reality sufficiently well to enable us to predict what will happen in any given set of circumstances. The essence of the scientific method is to make a wild ass guess (WAG) and devise ways of proving it wrong by using it to make predictions. If the predictions prove wrong either scrap the WAG and start over or fine tune the WAG and make more predictions. Eventually the WAG becomes fine tuned enough that it rates the term SWAG. When it keeps working despite all the testing thrown at it it becomes a Theory.
Theory, like mist on eyeglass, obscure vision
- Falcon of Fong, quoting Freddie Fong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
The only philosophers I can abide are the pragmatists. If it works, it's OK.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Dear wofahulicodoc: Is this the quote you were looking for?
Favorite Holmes' lines:
I have no data. It is a capital mistake to theorise
before one has data
(Scandal in Bohemia)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,692
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,692 |
You will do me a middle-sized favor by telling me which story that's from
That particular quote in full is "I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has the data. Insensibly, one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts" and it comes from A Scandal in Bohemia, but there are similar sayings, such as "It is a capital mistake to theorize in advance of the facts" from The Adventure of the Second Stain and "It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgment." from A Study in Scarlet. Self - plagiarism?
I prefer the first one as it seems to set the issue out more completely. As wwh has said, it is from A Scandal in Bohemia.
Ed: I'll get this right eventually! Maybe.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624 |
Although I can see that the positivist view of science (it works, therefore it works) has its merits, I think the Popperian ideal of falsifiability provides some insurance of applicable congruity between theory and observed results that the purely practical positivist approach lacks.
Karl Popper wasn't saying that it has to be wrong to be right, he was merely saying that if you come up with a theory then you should be able to make predications based on your theory. If your predictions fail then you should look for another theory. This is "safer" than saying "I have observed an outcome and since my theory appears to fit what happened, my theory must be true".
Popperian proof is known as modus tolens. Positivists, on the other hand, use the approach known as modus ponens.
The two can be described a bit like this: For modus ponens your reasoning would go:
"If Faldage is a man, then Faldage is mortal.
Faldage is a man.
Therefore Faldage is mortal."
There is no necessary congruity between the assertion that Faldage is a man and the assertion that Faldage is mortal. How do you know that all men are mortal? You haven't observed every man, so you can't "prove" that all men are mortal.
Modus tolens, the Popperian (and Baconian) approach, is a twist on this:
"If Faldage is a god, then Faldage is immortal.
Faldage is not immortal
Therefore Faldage is not a god."
In this case, you have asserted that if Faldage is a god, then by definition he must be immortal. Faldage disobligingly proves he isn't mortal, so you therefore have incontrovertible proof that he is not a god.
Popper put it like this:
"If the theory is true, then the prediction is true.
The prediction is not true.
Therefore the theory is not true."
I pinched these examples - you have no idea how famous Faldage isn't - from my philosophy of science textbook from yonks back, but they should serve to show the positivists such as Dr Bill that modus tolens is in no way inconsistent with his own philosophy. It is, if anything, merely a safer approach to the verification of a theory through falsifiability than pure positivism is.
If you're interested in following this up (and I warn you, it's just a tad dry), then look for Karl R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, New York: Harper & Row, 1968
- Pfranz
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872 |
Think in abstractions, not absolutes. The word constructions that we'all use to make our knee-jerking contrived points are based on our own mostly neatly preconceived notions about the nature of mankind and events. Bless us all. And if, in the event, that our preconceived notions can't stand the test of the rarified air of youralls, overalls, funny presumptions, then most of our'en's preconceived notions might rightly, and conceivably, need a small shift of contisanquous value... but I doubt it.  Milo. 
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,322
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
519
guests, and
4
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
