2
   

The abusive use of the arguments against Logic and Truth

 
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2011 02:56 pm
Karl Popper suggested that for scientists "mere truth" is not enough. What they want are explanations or solutions to specific problems.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2011 03:30 pm
@wandeljw,
Now that you brought Popper to mind I like the method of empirical falsification...

Quote:
Falsifiability or refutability of an assertion, hypothesis or theory is the logical possibility that it can be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then some observation or experiment will produce a reproducible result that is in conflict with it.


...I have no problems with provisional truths...although I have problems with the refutation of any possible theory in town...
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2011 04:26 pm
Beware reliance on Popper in these matters.

Popper's "falsifiability in principle" criterion was intended by him to differentiate between "science" and "pseudo-science". Historically, he used it to reject Freudian and Marxist theories as "scientific". However, he ran into difficulties with both the complementarity principle (wave-particle duality) and with statistical laws in quantum theory and the social sciences. This was part of the impetus behind Kuhn's (alternative) paradigmatic view of "scientific revolutions" in which the significance of counter-examples was relative to dynamic paradigmatic coherence, rather than critical as originally implied by Popper.
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2011 05:04 pm
@fresco,
I think followers of Kuhn took paradigm as an alternative to Popper. I believe Kuhn intended to be descriptive rather than prescriptive. Kuhn's greatness was as a historian of science.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2011 05:11 pm
@wandeljw,
Correct. But acceptance of Kuhn carries with it acceptance of "reality as interactive narrative" rather than Popper's implied "independent reality". i.e Descriptivity devalues prescriptivity.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2011 01:47 pm
@fresco,
Did Popper think that falsification was the principal function of philosophy? I think that IS important, but not nearly so critical for the growth of Science as the GENERATION of falsifiable hypotheses. But I would even include unfalsifiable speculations for the growth of civilization.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2011 03:12 pm
@JLNobody,
Popper's interest in falsification stemmed from its asymmetric logical import relative to verification. (re: truth table for IF-THEN) I perhaps characterized him incorrectly above as implying the existence of "an independent reality", rather he saw epistemological progress as "the solution of problems"(i.e the resolution of inconsistencies). However it was the case that rejected all forms of "historicism" which is perhaps a better angle on his departure from Kuhn.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2011 03:45 pm
@fresco,
Thanks. I'm now motivated to read my copy of his classic, The Poverty of Historicism (?). But I'm having trouble finding it.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2011 03:45 pm
@fresco,
Thanks. I'm now motivated to read my copy of his classic, The Poverty of Historicism (?). But I'm having trouble finding it.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2011 05:01 pm
@wandeljw,
...honestly that jigsaw in between prescriptive and descriptive is pretty much lame...the word may seem like a soft stake on a first look but on second examination one immediately grasps the naivety of such reasoning...it fits better a political background then a philosophical set...
0 Replies
 
nothingtodo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Dec, 2012 04:47 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Damage limitation:

Ignored arguments from those victims of incorrect worldly problem solving 'system hammers' which decimate argument on premises of 'instability' re: majority.
Confuse and terminate the potential for comprehension.
Tactic momentary adaptation is a 'hammer break' designed to achieve % objective in momentary argument at the expense of self.

Arguers thus choose their fights or have only one major.
Presumption the fallen are all incorrect, is naive of you.

Attacking base logic as a stratagem is designated to be also a belief breaker, there are those thousands who adapt parallel to the attack.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/14/2019 at 07:14:52