Jason White wrote:
Rohan McLeod<rhn@jeack.com.au> wrote:
.......snip technology, which has existed for millennia in many different cultures and science which is a fairly recent invention, predominantly of Europe. The roots of science run much earlier - in the European tradition, at least to ancient Greece. I am not familiar in this respect with other traditions.
Well I would contend the epistemological roots of science lie more in the reaction against ; the scholastic authority of the Greeks ; than any discovery the Greeks made
The adoption by technology of scientific language, perhaps for unanimous, precise and unambiguous specification, exacerbates this confusion. It also largely overlooks the need in the linguistic foundation of science for a way of defining words; which enables objectively falsifiable statements to be constructed. Do you mean along the lines of Popper and Lakatos?
Well 'falsifiability' is something for which Popper (and Kuhn ? ) are by reputation ,associated; but they shouldn't be blamed for my theories; for example I would define the word science as follows: *science:*[tentatively] : An epistemological program, whose aim is verifiable knowledge; interpreted as knowledge consisting of 'objectively falsifiable hypothesis's'. where by 'objectively falsifiable hypothesis' is intended : a theory consisting of one or more 'objectively falsifiable-statements'. where by an 'objectively falsifiable-statement' is intended : a statement which asserts explicitly or implicitly ,one or more 'objectively observable facts' where by 'observable fact' is intended: (a) A 'logical relationship' between defined categories, or (b)the 'enumeration of a defined category' , or (c)'measurement of a defined quality, of a member of a defined category, in defined units ' , or (d)'mathematical relationships between such defined quantities' , or (e) other unanimously agreed upon, unambiguous and operationally defined descriptions of phenomena. /1/Normally the number of explicitly or implicitly 'objectively observable facts 'asserted,' will be much larger, than will ever be observed, but in the degenerate case where all the asserted facts have been observed;the hypothesis reverts to the status of a list of observed facts 2/:All 'falsifiable statements' are not be necessarily objective; and of those that are, not all are scientifically relevant; 3/ The logical consequence of the above definition would be: -scientific language itself, will be qualitatively different from other non-scientific specialist jargons, because of the constraints of falsifiability on the definitions of it's words. -scientific knowledge will contain no value judgments;ie. statements about what should or should not be; since such statements are not falsifiable. - scientific knowledge in any subject area, will consist of an: accumulating body of 'observed facts' and a number of hypotheses of variable transience,competing with each other, for consistency with the accumulating body of facts -scientific knowledge may or may not be quantitative; but it is necessarily falsifiable. 4/ The consequences of 3/ constitute a theory falsifiable against the observed history of science; that is it is desirable the definition is itself 'objectively falsifiable' /
Unfortunately current linguistics seems to treat language as just a 'natural phenomena'; [sic] rather than a 'social artifact one of whose purposes is communication' . The consequence is that it has essentially nothing to say regarding the purpose of definitions; and dictionary definitions in particular. I don't see any necessary inconsistency between treating language as a "natural phenomenon" and explaining the role of definitions,
Reading; "explaining the role of definitions" as 'explaining the purpose of definitions';a natural phenomena can have no purpose; some would claim that science rejects such teleology ; whereas I would contend that such statements are simply not falsifiable. eg. 'The purpose of a cloud is to..... ? '
to the extent that this is important. In any case, modern semantic analysis goes far beyond questions about definitions.
Well in conversations with linguistics academics and a quick read of linguistics primers; I found no theory of the purpose of personal or dictionary definitions. without which one has no basis for ranking such. But if you have come across any I am glad to hear about it.
I would contend that for artifacts defined in terms of their purposes; falsifiable statements are possible. You could just as well argue that statements of empirical fact are falsifiable.
Well they are ; you claim(for example) that there are 5 people in the room and I count only four !; though I fail to see what connection this has to the above statement. Is there some confusion here; between an objectively false statement and an objectively falsifiable one ?
One of the difficulties, though, which is raised against simple versions of this view
Perhaps you need to describe what 'view' this is ?
derives from the so-called theory-ladenness of observation. More complex forms of the theory are supposed to deal with this objection.
If you want to pursue this, I suggest finding a good book of collected papers in the philosophy of science (read Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyer-Abend, and others). At that point you'll be in a position to arrive at an informed opinion on the subject.
To which as usual I reply; put down your wretched books and think for yourself; you become a mathematician by doing mathematics; you become a philosopher by doing philosophy.
Hypothetically allow that such a definition does exist; we may then be able to conclude that the hypothesis of 'climate warming' is thus far consistent with the objectively observable evidence that , that hypothesis asserts. Whether the 'majority of scientists', 'domain experts' or 'peers' agree is irrelevant; down that path lies scholasticism. With scholasticism: ' the epistemological theory that the credibility of knowledge, must depend on the authority of it's source'
Testimony can be a legitimate path to knowledge, however. If you aren't in a position to evaluate the data and theories yourself, you have to rely on the informed opinions of the scientific community. If there's a critical and thoughtful debate within the scientific community that leads to a consensus (or near consensus) then that's evidence, for the time being, that the world is as claimed.
Well certainly not scientific knowledge or evidence ; this is almost pure scholasticism ;(in my rather idiosyncratic sense).Examples of the majority scientific community being wrong are quite frequent; think of any major hypothesis replacement ! If one really is unable " to evaluate the data and theories oneself "; perhaps it is better to remain undecided until one can ?
This assumes, of course, that pertinent experiments are carried out and rigorously evaluated. Further, some scientific issues are so complex that few people possess all of the interdisciplinary domain knowledge required to make an assessment, which is why scientists have to rely on work of their colleagues in other disciplines.
It seems to me that 'science' was invented precisely to by-pass the scholastic hierarchical authority structure; which you seem to want to reintroduce; by implication !
It may further be possible to show that the hypothesis of 'global warming', is consistent with " human CO2 emissions". Thus far and no further can science go. To the contrary, it can show that it's highly likely that there exists a causal relationship between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and global average temperature increases.
Well "global average temperature increases"; is certainly going down the road to an operational definition of 'global warming'. Perhaps more specific still would be some definition of 'temperature of what' ;but I see no essential difference between: "global warming', is consistent with human CO2 emissions". and "it's highly likely that there exists a causal relationship between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and global average temperature increases."
So... it's time for you to do some reading. Have fun!
Well perhaps we will just have to agree to disagree about that ? regards Rohan McLeod