|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Beyond Popper? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
moioci Inactive Member |
In a couple of pieces I've looked at lately, one from Panda's Thumb and one from the Discovery Inst., I've seen it mentioned in passing that contemporary philosophy of science no longer holds as closely to Popper's thought as it once did.
For instance, from The Scientific Status of ID,
Stephen C. Meyer writes: The use of demarcation arguments to settle the origins controversy is also problematic because the whole enterprise of demarcation has now fallen into disrepute. Attempts to locate methodological invariants that provide a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for distinguishing true science from pseudoscience have failed.10 Most philosophers of science now recognize that neither verifiability, nor testability (nor falsifiability), nor the use of lawlike explanation (nor any other criterion) can suffice to define scientific practice. As Laudan puts it, If we could stand up on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like ‘pseudo-science’they do only emotive work for us. In college I found Popper's thinking very counterintuitive, but when I go back and read his very lucid explication of falsification, I find it reflects very well my conception of the scientific process. I want very much to be able to stick with Sir Karl and not feel behind the times. Is there a Contemporary PhilSci for Knuckleheads , or some such? Because I think there was never a time when we needed to be able to invoke demarcation as much as we do now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13042 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5708 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
Well, Thomas Kuhn's book is a good read. I also enjoy some of the books on science and pseudoscience. Mark and Daisy Rander, How to think about weird things, Why people believe weird things are titles that come to mind as well as Sagan's Demon Haunted World. While the latter titles are not specifically about philosophy of science, they are good reads nonetheless.
Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6040 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
Well, the demarcation problem in terms of "necessary and sufficient" conditions probably is not solvable...but "necessary" conditions are pretty darn important all on their own.
I don't think I've read anything that convinces me that falsifiability is not a necessary attribute of science, although it is far from sufficient. Maybe I haven't read enough PhilSci lately, though. Can someone give me a candidate for "non-falsifiable science"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
moioci
I find it reflects very well my conception of the scientific process. I want very much to be able to stick with Sir Karl and not feel behind the times. Is there a Contemporary PhilSci for Knuckleheads , or some such? Well the best I could offer you that will give you huge insight into the working of science is located at this website. http://explorepdx.com/feynman.html You can spend literally months going through the hyperlinks and working out the understanding that you gain from the material. I find it is hugely useful for clearing up misunderstanding of concepts in different areas.I do hope you enjoy it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
moioci Inactive Member |
I appreciate your thoughtful responses. I did read Structure of Scientific Revolutions in an undergrad PhilSci course oh so many years ago. There was also something about Carnap. I remember hermetically sealed envelopes and a groovy headdress. Ah, it was magnificent! Unfortunately these things get muddled so many eons later. Seriously, I don't remember Kuhn dealing with a revolution in terms of an understanding of what is and isn't science, ie, naturalism vs. not. I guess that's implicit in the Copernican and Darwinian revolutions, in that science turned away from scripture for explanation. Thanks also for the link, sidelined. I've enjoyed Feynman's popular books, but haven't gotten into any of the meaty stuff.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Kuhn had insisted to Richard Boyd during a conference that GRAVITY changed once Einstein provided a different basis from Newton. I believe that is on page 102 in the Structures' book. Kuhn did not simply think that people's views on gravity changed. This seems to preclude strict falsification. I dont know. It just seemed silly to me that philosophers would worry about stuff like that as it gets more matterially in the way of doing science than moral considerations which are obvioulsy seperable where this is not.
So i dont understand what Kuhn has to do with Popper as the difference for Kuhn seems to be at materialism not naturalism. I dont know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
I've been waiting to see if anyone addressed what I thought was the most important detail, but no one did. The person you quoted is Stephen C. Meyer of Discovery Institute. Both are at the forefront of advocacy for the so-called theory of Intelligent Design. His characterization of the "origins controversy" is self-serving and attempts to paint an inaccurate picture.
The reality is that Intelligent Design is still a theory in search of evidence. Theories developed without evidence are pseudo-science. IDists can clothe their theory in scientific procedure and language, but there is nothing beneath the clothes. In a surprising twist on an old fairy tale, ID is a case where the clothes have no emperor! Suffice to say that scientists as a group have not significantly revised the standards of science. As much as Creationists might pray for a lowered bar to qualify as science, the standards are as stringent as ever: evidence, replication, powerful and persuasive interpretive framework. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5848 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
In a surprising twist on an old fairy tale, ID is a case where the clothes have no emperor! sweet. supersweet. did you just come up with this? I will be stealing it I think. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros) "...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
holmes writes: sweet. supersweet. did you just come up with this? I will be stealing it I think. Uh, yeah. Steal away! --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Apparently, though original I can't claim priority. Do a Google on "clothes have no emperor" (including the quotation marks). There's even a book by the title.
Ah, well, scooped again! --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tsig Member (Idle past 2937 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: |
Apparently, though original I can't claim priority. Do a Google on "clothes have no emperor" (including the quotation marks). There's even a book by the title. Ah, well, scooped again! --Percy Don't you hate it when your'e original thought is already somewhere else. Maybe everything has already been said.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
moioci Inactive Member |
Maybe I should've filled in some more background with my initial question. In the course of reading both proponents and opponents of ID, I ran across statements to the effect that Popper is no longer viewed as the last word on demarcation. Since it seems to me that the pseudoscience angle is logically the best approach to keeping ID out of the science classroom, the criteria for making this distinction take on heightened importance. It is patently obvious to me that ID fails the falsifiability test, but I was wondering what the current view of falsifiability is. Zhimbo's view makes sense to me; if falsifiability is necessary, that's all that's needed for our purposes. Percy, your listed criteria provide powerful ammunition for this debate. Thay strike me as being more practical than philosophical -- likely both kinds of argument have a role here. Anyway, I'm still stumbling over the "IC ergo ID" thought process, even granting IC, which strikes me as tenuous at best.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
moioci writes: In the course of reading both proponents and opponents of ID, I ran across statements to the effect that Popper is no longer viewed as the last word on demarcation. My guess is that few practicing scientists spend much time thinking about the philosophy of science, and information about debates within the community of philosophers who specialize in this area is not widely available. But Zhimbo said all that really needed to be said when he rhetorically asked, "What is non-falsifiable science?" Put simplistically, scientists design experiments which either confirm or deny their hypotheses. Is there another way to learn how the universe works? That the answer is so obvious is why I focused my attention on the group trying to raise doubts about the way science is practiced. When Meyer writes, "Most philosophers of science now recognize that neither verifiability, nor testability (nor falsifiability), nor the use of lawlike explanation (nor any other criterion) can suffice to define scientific practice," he is not saying that these qualities aren't necessary. He's written it in a way that appears to question the necessity of standard scientific criteria like falsifiability, and I'm sure this questioning quality is on purpose, but he's really only saying that they aren't sufficient. There's no information about what additional qualities Meyer thinks important in what you quoted from him. Meyer does not argue that criteria like falsifiability should be dropped because he knows as well as anyone that they are a key component of science, but he's trying to divert attention away from them because ideas like IC and ID do not have the qualities of verifiability, testability or falsifiability. The reason they lack these qualities is for the reasons I listed earlier: no evidence, no replication, no interpretive framework. Until IDists address these issues their science will retain the pseudo prefix. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024