Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Beyond Popper?
moioci
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 14 (189951)
03-04-2005 1:17 AM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Joe Meert, posted 03-05-2005 11:42 AM moioci has not replied
 Message 4 by Zhimbo, posted 03-06-2005 2:36 PM moioci has not replied
 Message 5 by sidelined, posted 03-07-2005 12:38 AM moioci has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 14 (190158)
03-05-2005 9:09 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 3 of 14 (190172)
03-05-2005 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by moioci
03-04-2005 1:17 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by moioci, posted 03-04-2005 1:17 AM moioci has not replied

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6012 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 4 of 14 (190340)
03-06-2005 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by moioci
03-04-2005 1:17 AM


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"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by moioci, posted 03-04-2005 1:17 AM moioci has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 5 of 14 (190395)
03-07-2005 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by moioci
03-04-2005 1:17 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by moioci, posted 03-04-2005 1:17 AM moioci has not replied

  
moioci
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 14 (190476)
03-07-2005 12:39 PM


Thanks, all!
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Brad McFall, posted 03-07-2005 12:55 PM moioci has not replied
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 03-07-2005 2:14 PM moioci has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 7 of 14 (190481)
03-07-2005 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by moioci
03-07-2005 12:39 PM


Re: Thanks, all!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by moioci, posted 03-07-2005 12:39 PM moioci has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 8 of 14 (190488)
03-07-2005 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by moioci
03-07-2005 12:39 PM


Re: Thanks, all!
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by moioci, posted 03-07-2005 12:39 PM moioci has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Silent H, posted 03-07-2005 5:49 PM Percy has replied
 Message 13 by moioci, posted 03-09-2005 9:34 AM Percy has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 9 of 14 (190521)
03-07-2005 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Percy
03-07-2005 2:14 PM


Re: Thanks, all!
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 03-07-2005 2:14 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Percy, posted 03-07-2005 7:19 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 11 by Percy, posted 03-07-2005 7:24 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 10 of 14 (190526)
03-07-2005 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Silent H
03-07-2005 5:49 PM


Re: Thanks, all!
holmes writes:
sweet. supersweet. did you just come up with this? I will be stealing it I think.
Uh, yeah. Steal away!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Silent H, posted 03-07-2005 5:49 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 11 of 14 (190527)
03-07-2005 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Silent H
03-07-2005 5:49 PM


Re: Thanks, all!
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Silent H, posted 03-07-2005 5:49 PM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by tsig, posted 03-08-2005 9:15 AM Percy has not replied

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 2909 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 12 of 14 (190590)
03-08-2005 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Percy
03-07-2005 7:24 PM


Re: Thanks, all!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Percy, posted 03-07-2005 7:24 PM Percy has not replied

  
moioci
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 14 (190748)
03-09-2005 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Percy
03-07-2005 2:14 PM


Re: Thanks, all!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 03-07-2005 2:14 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Percy, posted 03-09-2005 10:11 AM moioci has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 14 of 14 (190757)
03-09-2005 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by moioci
03-09-2005 9:34 AM


Re: Thanks, all!
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by moioci, posted 03-09-2005 9:34 AM moioci has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024