paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx schrieb:
> John
>
> Thanks for the neat explanation
>
> I think I may have given the wrong impression - I am sure there is a value
> in falsifiablity,
>
> I also agree that QM (quantum mysticism) is often dangerously
> purported as 'science', when it is not
>
> However a lot of science is also dangerously sold as 'science', when
> it is not
>
> Science today should know better.....
>
>
> cf -
>
> Robert Crease
>
> Popper's principle is beloved by crusaders against junk- and
> pseudo-science, for it simplifies demarcation. But, however attractive
> Popper's falsifiability principle might sound, it is not good
> philosophy of science. (01)
I came to the same conclusion in my PhD-thesis, "A Critique of Karl
Popper's Methodology" (Scandinavian University Press 1975). As I say on
my home page: I send the book for free to everyone who has the intention
to read some parts of it. In the book I sort all of Popper's
methodological rules into six groups, which I then discuss and dismiss
one by one. Kuhn, Feyerabend, and Lakatos are also discussed; one
chapter for each. (02)
However, the fact that Popper's methodological rules do not stand up to
scrutiny should by no means be allowed to hide the positive side of
Popper's thinking around science. First, he has very good arguments in
favor of epistemological fallibilism that are independent of his bad
methodological rules. Second, he has made explicit the notion of
'truthlikeness', which is needed in order to make semantic sense of
fallibilism. Popper thought wrongly that he was the first great thinker
to propound fallibilism (Peirce had done this before him). But, as far
as I know, he can really boast of being the first who has really
discussed the notion of truthlikeness. (03)
Best,
Ingvar J (04)
PS. If I should re-write my dissertation today, I should discuss
Popper's methodological rules two times. First as compeletely general
rules (which I have done, and this is the way Popper intended them); and
second as default rules (as such some of them have some credence). Also,
I should add my paper "Ceteris paribus Clauses, Closure Clauses, and
Falsifiability" (1980; linked to my home site). (05)
> http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/16478
>
>
> Paul Newell
> http://www.galilean-library.org/falsificationism.html
>
> In summary, then, falsificationism in its various forms is an
> interesting idea but insufficient either to characterise science or
> solve the demarcation problem
> <http://www.galilean-library.org/lakatos.html>. It suffers from a
> series of logical and philosophical difficulties that should perhaps
> give us pause if hoping to find a single answer to what makes good
> science and what does not.
>
>
> lots of others, including yours humble
>
>
> On Dec 10, 2007 6:02 PM, John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> Paola,
>
> Falsifiability is part of Popper's philosophy of science, and most
> people consider it a good approach to testing a theory. The logical
> positivists were originally opposed to it because they had proposed
> verifiability as their criterion. But Popper merely pointed out that
> it is extremely difficult and, in most cases, impossible to show that
> a true hypothesis is absolutely true. However, it's much easier to
> show that a false one is false.
>
> > I was referring to 'falsifiability' as regarded by some as an
> > essential requirement for an experiment to be scientifically
> valid,
> > and as totally absurd by others, especially in the light of quantum
> > theory, where the same conditions are likely never to be repeatable
> > in an experiment. I am interested opinions on falsifiability btw -
>
> Falsifiability is not a property of an experiment, but of a
> hypothesis,
> and it's just as applicable to quantum mechanics as it is to auto
> mechanics, cooking, or any other subject.
>
> The basic idea is very simple. Just take any sample hypothesis:
>
> All crows are black.
>
> To verify this statement, it would be necessary to check every crow
> that exists. If you miss a single one, it's conceivable that you
> overlooked the crucial crow that makes the statement false.
>
> But to show that the statement is false, you don't have to check
> every one. You can stop at the first crow that is not black.
> If many people search far and wide without finding a non-black
> crow, that gives some assurance that the hypothesis is fairly
> reliable. (But no empirical theory can be absolutely certain.)
>
> A theory that states probabilities, such as quantum mechanics,
> is no different in principle. QM, for example, might predict
> a probability distribution for some observation. To test it,
> just perform several experiments to see how close the observed
> values are to the expected distribution. If you repeatedly
> get a very different distribution, that shows the hypothesis
> is false (or perhaps, your equipment or procedure is bad).
>
> That is all there is to 'falsifiability'. It is just a rather
> obvious point. However, Popper went on to say that it provides
> a criterion for good science: A theory should be stated so
> precisely that it suggests easy experiments for testing whether
> the theory is false. If a lot of very knowledgeable people try
> as hard as they can to show it is false but fail, then the theory
> is fairly reliable.
>
> Quality control inspectors do the same thing for testing any kind
> of product, ranging from cars and computers to dresses and pies:
> search for possible flaws that would make it a bad example. If
> they can't find any, that doesn't prove there are no flaws, but
> it provides some assurance that it's fairly good.
>
> And by the way, Peirce made very similar remarks about 50 years
> before Popper, but he didn't use the word 'falsifiability'.
>
> John
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Subscribe/Config:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Paola Di Maio
> School of IT
> www.mfu.ac.th <http://www.mfu.ac.th>
> *********************************************
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> (06)
--
Ingvar Johansson
IFOMIS, Saarland University
home site: http://ifomis.org/
personal home site:
http://hem.passagen.se/ijohansson/index.html (07)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (08)
|