tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post841607638568195515..comments2024-03-27T19:47:13.475-07:00Comments on Dark Buzz: Pinker on insults to the sacred dogmaRogerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03474078324293158376noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-57503925957859466572015-02-04T23:10:33.190-08:002015-02-04T23:10:33.190-08:00CFT,
Roger is right in rejecting Karl Popper'...CFT,<br /><br />Roger is right in rejecting Karl Popper's nonsense. <br /><br />Popper proposed the falsifiability criterion not in order to highlight the fact that science is based on or progresses via the experimental method, but actually, to subtly undermine the very basis of science, viz., induction.<br /><br />A great defence of induction, going beyond the Enlightenment times theory, is in a recent book by David Harriman: "Induction in Physics." For whatever my opinion is worth, I strongly recommend it for a permanent place on your book shelf. [Also, for reading it... :) ]<br /><br />For the time being, just observe that Popper requires *theories* to be falsifiable, not *tests*. <br /><br />A correct statement here is: For a theory to be valid, it must have objectively verifiable inductive bases, and objectively verifiable implications. <br /><br />The implications don't have to take the form of true/false. They can also be just true/non-true. The term "verifiable implications" isn't necessarily the same as predictions, though the latter sure are included in the former.<br /><br />Consider Newton's mechanics. He rightly regarded the three laws as axioms (though "postulates" is the form in which you are more likely to have read them described.) He also regarded his idea of the absolute space as an axiom. None of these are supposed to be open to "testing." They are open to a probing concerning their inductive bases---which is not the same thing as testing. However, the theory then makes some predictions concerning motions of objects, which are then open to testing---and which are falsifiable. <br /><br />But therefore to describe this theory as falsifiable, is to pre-emptively throw out the very inductive bases of those axioms, their scope of reference, and therefore, the scope of their (and the theory's) applicability. As Roger rightly indicates, it is to pull down a difficult/great/towering inductive achievement down to the level of "opinons" if not subjective whims which, once their time runs out, will be "found out."<br /><br />The last never happens with properly inductive theories. What is known as the (special) theory of relativity, does not "falsify" Newton's theory---it "merely" extends and subsumes the older theory, in the context that massive objects also carry charges. Remove the charge, and the "relativity" theory reduces to Newton's. Newtonian mechanics was not an opinion which would have to wither when a superior (more complex) opinion mysteriously descended from some supernaturally gifted elite. <br /><br />It is also possible that a *new* theory does not extend an old theory but merely recasts it on some other conceptual basis: in some more easily understood concepts/framework that essentially carries the same factual content (or has the same scope) as an earlier established theory---to whatever extent the earlier theory was established. Such formulations also qualify for the title: "new theory." There are 9+ formulations of the mainstream QM, and each of them offers a certain cognitive advantage in certain respects. Thus, the "epistemological suitability to reduce the cognitive load in certain contexts" itself can also be a good goal for theory-building.<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />--Ajit<br />[E&OE]<br />Ajit R. Jadhavhttp://ajitjadhav.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-79610436777624568112015-02-04T15:22:49.209-08:002015-02-04T15:22:49.209-08:00Predictions often get proved wrong, but that is no...Predictions often get proved wrong, but that is not what Pinker is saying. He says that the "beloved convictions" are proved wrong. That is very rare.<br /><br />Popper was not wrong about the requirement that theories be falsifiable. My problem with him that he was an anti-positivist. I will post some more about this. In the meantime, all I am saying here is that Popper and others influenced Pinker.Rogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03474078324293158376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-46934633484219426272015-02-04T11:36:27.133-08:002015-02-04T11:36:27.133-08:00Better yet, please explain why falsification is un...Better yet, please explain why falsification is unnecessary in scientific endeavors. I'm honestly curious to see why you think a prediction that can never be proven wrong no matter the result is part of science. This is the tripe that I hear from the Anthropogenic Global Warming camp all the time. They make a prediction, it's wrong, but no matter what, they continue to claim their theory is correct. Ask them to provide what would be required for their theory to be proven incorrect or falsified, they fall silent. CFTnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-91615190252157818452015-02-04T11:30:18.456-08:002015-02-04T11:30:18.456-08:00How was Karl Popper wrong about the requirement of...How was Karl Popper wrong about the requirement of falsification? It actually is a requirement of physics experiments. You MUST be able to measure and test it, and the test must be falsifiable, otherwise, you are blowing hot air.<br /><br /> Pick up a physics book and look what it says about the scientific method in the first chapter. I have several Physics books lying about the place, would you like me to pull quotes from each of them confirming this? Are non scientists writing all the physics text books now? oh dear.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />CFTnoreply@blogger.com