paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx schrieb:
> I'd be interested to read the thing, but would prefer an online version
> what about publishing your work on a website? (01)
I'll think about. It was written before the computer revolution, and I
have so far not found reason to scan it. (02)
/Ingvar (03)
>
> I use www.wikispaces.com <http://www.wikispaces.com>
> cheers
> PDM
>
> On Dec 10, 2007 9:04 PM, Ingvar Johansson
> <ingvar.johansson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:ingvar.johansson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Best,
> Ingvar J
>
> 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).
>
>
> > 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
> <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>
> > <mailto: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/
> <http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/>
> > Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > <mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> > Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> > Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> <http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/>
> > To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > <mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Paola Di Maio
> > School of IT
> > www.mfu.ac.th <http://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
> <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>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Ingvar Johansson
> IFOMIS, Saarland University
> home site: http://ifomis.org/
> personal home site:
> http://hem.passagen.se/ijohansson/index.html
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> (04)
--
Ingvar Johansson
IFOMIS, Saarland University
home site: http://ifomis.org/
personal home site:
http://hem.passagen.se/ijohansson/index.html (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|