Science Week 2012 is from 11th to 19th August. http://www.scienceweek.net.au/ Possibly one of the more controversial parts will be Ian Enting's Tuesday 14th public lecture disputing climate change denial. http://www.complex.org.au/c_events.php This lecture will cause a change from the usual meetings of http://www.meetup.com/17Group/events/75638672/?a=me2_grp&rv=me2 (Usually they currently meet at "Lentils As Anything" in Footscray).
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012, David E Payne <spyder.king@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Science Week 2012 is from 11th to 19th August. http://www.scienceweek.net.au/
Possibly one of the more controversial parts will be Ian Enting's Tuesday 14th public lecture disputing climate change denial. http://www.complex.org.au/c_events.php
The following paper may be of interest. Abstract Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world’s climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence. Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a prominent and influential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N > 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we find that endorsement of a laissez- faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r .80 between latent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides empirical confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists. http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/documents/LskyetalPsyc... -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Russell Coker wrote:
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012, David E Payne<spyder.king@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Science Week 2012 is from 11th to 19th August. Perhaps science week is a good time to consider precisely what is intended by the word 'science'. My experience at various public lecture forums, has led me to believe there is surprisingly; little general agreement in this. In consequence there seems much confusion regarding the difference between technology, which has existed for millennia in many different cultures and science which is a fairly recent invention, predominantly of Europe. 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. Unfortunately current linguistics seems to treat language as just a 'natural phenomena'; 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 would contend that for artifacts defined in terms of their purposes; falsifiable statements are possible.
http://www.scienceweek.net.au/
Possibly one of the more controversial parts will be Ian Enting's Tuesday 14th public lecture disputing climate change denial. http://www.complex.org.au/c_events.php The following paper may be of interest.
Abstract
Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world’s climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence. Let's read ' altering the world' s climate ' as ' climate warming'; we are still far from a unanimous operational operational definition of the term. 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' 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. Whether 1/ something should be done and if 2/ what ; are the domain of ideology and politics. Notice that extremely divergent views on 2/ may be possible
......snip..... Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer.
"Endorsement of the free market"; could mean 1/ having the opinion that 'a competitive free-market'; results in higher per capita production than some form of control economy; Which would seem to be broadly consistent with history but it could also mean 2/ having the opinion that an 'unregulated competitive free-market'; best supplies the needs of society; ..Adam Smith's 'invisible hand Which some like me would contend is a pathetic unfalsifiable irresponsible delusion. regards Rohan McLeod
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012, Rohan McLeod <rhn@jeack.com.au> wrote:
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.
Except that there is considerable evidence to show that human CO2 emissions are making the difference.
Whether 1/ something should be done and if 2/ what ; are the domain of ideology and politics.
The scientific research indicates that significant areas of farmland will be destroyed and thus remove the ability to feed the world's human population so it seems clear that something should be done if we base things on the assumption that the majority of the population needs to be kept alive. I think that most people will agree with such an assumption. As for what should be done, there are lots of things being done right now. The work on renewable energy sources and energy efficiency is being done but far too slowly. Some people have ideology issues which make them think that huge amounts of tax money should go to supporting fossil fuel industries which wouldn't even be profitable in a free market. But anyone who knows the science can easily determine that it would be better to have tax money go to research that leads to better products for everyone. Even if it wasn't for global warming there are lots of other problems related to fossil fuels.
......snip..... Endorsement of the free market also
predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer.
"Endorsement of the free market"; could mean 1/ having the opinion that 'a competitive free-market'; results in higher per capita production than some form of control economy; Which would seem to be broadly consistent with history but it could also mean 2/ having the opinion that an 'unregulated competitive free-market'; best supplies the needs of society; ..Adam Smith's 'invisible hand Which some like me would contend is a pathetic unfalsifiable irresponsible delusion.
Actually there's a lot of evidence that the deluded "free market" people who want corporations to do anything they like without regulation is bad for the economy and for the citizens. Competition in the market based on enforcable contracts (government regularion) and which involves educated and healthy employees (government education and health-care) who are paid a fair wage is the best way to keep the economy going. This is why the 99% in Australia are so much better off than the 99% in the US. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Russell Coker wrote:
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012, Rohan McLeod<rhn@jeack.com.au> wrote:
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. Except that there is considerable evidence to show that human CO2 emissions are making the difference. Quite possibly
Whether 1/ something should be done and if 2/ what ; are the domain of ideology and politics. The scientific research indicates that significant areas of farmland will be destroyed and thus remove the ability to feed the world's human population so it seems clear that something should be done if we base things on the assumption that the majority of the population needs to be kept alive. I think that most people will agree with such an assumption. Less than one micro-second after I am dead ; I would think the future of the human-race ; and indeed the future of life in the universe will be; of little concern to me. Bio-diversity; the quantity and quality of human lives are obviously things that human beings care about; but expecting some basis for what should be achieved and how; are surely ideological questions; to expect agreement is not consistent with history; nor would one expect it to be .
As for what should be done, there are lots of things being done right now.
No doubt; but just don't expect agreement
The work on renewable energy sources and energy efficiency is being done but far too slowly. Some people have ideology issues
For me an ideological statement is simply a statement of what should or shouldn't be; we tend to believe our own values reflect some absolute state of the universe; whilst the values of others are 'ideologies'
which make them think that huge amounts of tax money should go to supporting fossil fuel industries which wouldn't even be profitable in a free market. But anyone who knows the science can easily determine that it would be better to have tax money go to research that leads to better products for everyone. Well I probably agree; but I doubt the proposal will receive much support amongst right-wing anarchists (for example)
Even if it wasn't for global warming there are lots of other problems related to fossil fuels.
......snip..... Endorsement of the free market also
predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. "Endorsement of the free market"; could mean 1/ having the opinion that 'a competitive free-market'; results in higher per capita production than some form of control economy; Which would seem to be broadly consistent with history but it could also mean 2/ having the opinion that an 'unregulated competitive free-market'; best supplies the needs of society; ..Adam Smith's 'invisible hand Which some like me would contend is a pathetic unfalsifiable irresponsible delusion. Actually there's a lot of evidence that the deluded "free market" people who want corporations to do anything they like without regulation is bad for the economy and for the citizens.
The mute point being of course 'bad'
Competition in the market based on enforcable contracts (government regularion) Well I'm not sure that anti-monopoly , anti-trust laws can be considered contracts; but certainly a free-market with out them would rapidly descend into monopolies. The reason I say belief in Adam Smith's 'Invisible Hand' is a pathetic, irresponsible delusion is more fully explained here:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B0aOfcVEMVoKUFl4OGVDekR6TlE regards Rohan McLeod
Hi Russell, I pretty much agree, but ... On 12/08/2012 09:09, Russell Coker wrote:
This is why the 99% in Australia are so much better off than the 99% in the US.
Citation? Or did you mean "most people" rather than precisely 99%? How do you define "better off"; purely economically? Regards, Anders.
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012, Anders Holmstrom <anders.sputnik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/08/2012 09:09, Russell Coker wrote:
This is why the 99% in Australia are so much better off than the 99% in the US.
Citation? Or did you mean "most people" rather than precisely 99%? How do you define "better off"; purely economically?
Do a google search for "the 99%". -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Rohan McLeod <rhn@jeack.com.au> wrote:
In consequence there seems much confusion regarding the difference between 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.
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?
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, to the extent that this is important. In any case, modern semantic analysis goes far beyond questions about definitions.
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. One of the difficulties, though, which is raised against simple versions of this view 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.
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. 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 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. So... it's time for you to do some reading. Have fun!
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
Rohan McLeod <rhn@jeack.com.au> wrote:
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..... ? The purpose of the heart is to circulate blood in the organism. That's what it evolved to do, and that is its biological function. This statement is perfectly falsifiable but happens to be true. It's one of many counter-examples to your above assertion.
'
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.
That's probably because "definitions" aren't a significant subject of study within semantics, but there are techniques for giving semantic analyses of substantial subsets of natural languages, including philosophically important terms.
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 ? No. The problem is that many "observations" in science are deeply bound up with theoretical insights that are required in order to understand what the observation is. That's one of the principal arguments against Popper's account of falsification, for example.
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.
And the right way to do philosophy is to engage thoughtfully and critically with the best of what has been thought and developed by others, including your contemporaries. This is perfectly consistent with developing your own theories; but if you try to do the latter without any understanding of prior research in the field, what you produce is highly likely to be neither original nor interesting. With the right practice, dedication and reading, though, you can reach an understanding of the issues and develop skills that enable you to do philosophy well. Likewise, trying to prove a major theorem in mathematics without understanding prior mathematical results is likely to be a futile undertaking. In fact, you can't even understand most contemporary mathematical research without an extensive background in the field.
it's time for you to do some reading. Have fun! Well perhaps we will just have to agree to disagree about that ?
Whether you do the reading is a matter for you, of course, but without it, you are very unlikely to understand the issues at stake or to have anything worthwhile to say on the subject. By way of analogy, I haven't studied mathematics in depth. My chances of proving the Riemann hypothesis or of making any other significant contribution without the requisite study are negligible (epsilonic, as mathematicians might say, if not zero).
Jason White wrote:
Rohan McLeod<rhn@jeack.com.au> wrote:
The purpose of the heart is to circulate blood in the organism. That's what it evolved to do, Yes and that is its biological function. Yes This statement is perfectly falsifiable but happens to be true. Good there is no confusion regarding false and falsifiability It's one of many counter-examples to your above assertion. Evolution results in many adaptations which in retrospect we can see serve a purpose; but unless you subscribe to Intelligent Design; evolution itself is without purpose. I would like to claim that insight as my own, but alas it is not.
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. That's probably because "definitions" aren't a significant subject of study within semantics, but there are techniques for giving semantic analyses of substantial subsets of natural languages, including philosophically important terms. Well if you know of a linguistic theory of definition; in particular dictionary definitions; the simplest way to falsify my assertion is to state what it is . No. The problem is that many "observations" in science are deeply bound up with theoretical insights that are required in order to understand what the observation is. That's one of the principal arguments against Popper's account of falsification, for example. As stated earlier I don't believe Karl Popper, can receive much blame for my theories. Reading 'observations' as 'observed fact'; I am stating quite explicitly that the particular observed facts, which will falsify a hypothesis are those implicitly or explicitly asserted by the hypothesis you become a philosopher by doing philosophy. And the right way to do philosophy is to engage thoughtfully and critically with the best of what has been thought and developed by others, including your contemporaries. Well I would contend precisely the opposite; a failure to put aside:
"the best of what has been thought and developed by others, including your contemporaries." is " highly likely to be neither original nor interesting"
Likewise, trying to prove a major theorem in mathematics without understanding prior mathematical results is likely to be a futile undertaking.
But the contrary is also true; an encyclopaedic erudition in mathematics may also result in no original theorems !
extensive background in the field.
it's time for you to do some reading. Have fun! Well perhaps we will just have to agree to disagree about that ? Whether you do the reading is a matter for you, of course, but without it, you are very unlikely to understand the issues at stake or to have anything worthwhile to say on the subject. Again I would contend precisely the opposite, especially in philosophy; a failure to inquire independently prior to consulting the literature; will result in little understanding, and the mediocrity so typical of academia.
regards Rohan McLeod ;
Rohan McLeod <rhn@jeack.com.au> wrote:
Evolution results in many adaptations which in retrospect we can see serve a purpose; but unless you subscribe to Intelligent Design; evolution itself is without purpose.
It's entirely possible for components of a complex system to serve a purpose without there being a designer. One can to use teleological concepts without assuming a design hypothesis. There is a view of evolution according to which it achieves exactly this, by creating "design" and complexity ultimately out of simple and naturally occurring constituents.
Well if you know of a linguistic theory of definition; in particular dictionary definitions; the simplest way to falsify my assertion is to state what it is .
I've already explained that dictionary definitions don't play a large role in the analysis and clarification of language, but there are other approaches which are more widely used. For example, one can try to state necessary and sufficient conditions. For example, it's possible to develop an ultimately problematic theory of knowledge by proceeding from the claim that a subject S knows a proposition p if and only if: 1. p is true. 2. S believes that p. 3. S is justified in believing that p. and the theory would then explain the role and content of each of the above three components. To understand why this won't work, read an article on Gettier cases.
No. The problem is that many "observations" in science are deeply bound up with theoretical insights that are required in order to understand what the observation is. That's one of the principal arguments against Popper's account of falsification, for example. As stated earlier I don't believe Karl Popper, can receive much blame for my theories.
You haven't explained why objections that are germane to his theories don't apply to your own, as I suggested they do.
Reading 'observations' as 'observed fact'; I am stating quite explicitly that the particular observed facts, which will falsify a hypothesis are those implicitly or explicitly asserted by the hypothesis
You then need criteria for determining which facts those are and an explanation of what is required in order to falsify them. If you read the literature you can at least avoid making the mistakes of others and avoid the most important objections that have been made against theories of scientific knowledge based on falsification.
you become a philosopher by doing philosophy. And the right way to do philosophy is to engage thoughtfully and critically with the best of what has been thought and developed by others, including your contemporaries. Well I would contend precisely the opposite; a failure to put aside:
"the best of what has been thought and developed by others, including your contemporaries." is " highly likely to be neither original nor interesting"
I think there is empirical evidence to the contrary: all of the great contributions that come to mind have been made by people who are very well versed in the prior literature related to the particular issues in question. You're making an empirical claim and it happens to be false. I also said that original and interesting contributions by those not familiar with the field are extremely rare, if they occur at all, so one or two counter-examples wouldn't be enough to displace the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Likewise, trying to prove a major theorem in mathematics without understanding prior mathematical results is likely to be a futile undertaking.
But the contrary is also true; an encyclopaedic erudition in mathematics may also result in no original theorems !
To clarify, the claim was that the understanding of mathematics is a necessary condition for establishing original theorems; it is not a sufficient condition. You appear to hold that it is not a necessary condition either, but as I've argued earlier in the thread, it is in fact necessary.
Again I would contend precisely the opposite, especially in philosophy; a failure to inquire independently prior to consulting the literature; will result in little understanding, and the mediocrity so typical of academia.
It's easy to dismiss what you don't understand, and it's also a grave error. Of course, to establish that mediocrity is typical, you would need to engage with the literature that you want to avoid, in order to demonstrate what is, in your view, mediocre about it. I have engaged with the literature and much of it yields genuine and valuable insights into the topics discussed. Thus I have plenty of evidence that it's not, in general, mediocre. It's also true that, if lots of smart people who have devoted considerable thought and research to a topic think that certain concepts and issues are important, this provides a very good reason to understand what those ideas/issues are before you claim that they're not significant.
participants (5)
-
Anders Holmstrom -
David E Payne -
Jason White -
Rohan McLeod -
Russell Coker