Hi Tom, interesting, I don't disagree with you - railing against the
imposition of logic.
I'd say Popper pointed out (to anyone who noticed) what a tiny corner
of natural science is even amenable to such logic. Not very much -
effectively falsification is about as good as it gets, and even it has
only limit fields of applicability.
I think we're on a cup-half-full / cup-half-empty argument.
Ian
On 3/20/07, Tom Milner-Gulland <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 16:52:08 -0500, ian glendinning <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> >Ah Tom, I see now ...
> >
> >The point about falsification is the surely "failure to falsify".
> >Falisfication is **always** back to the drawing board - with
> >everything potentially, the experiment and the hypothesis first, then
> >the premises, and finally your whole paradigm and even your
> >metaphysics if necessary.
> >
> >I see Popper as saying pretty much what you are saying - that nothing
> >is laid down definitively - failure to falsify is never anything more
> >than a temporary stay of execution. (It is axiomatic that there are no
> >axioms to be had.)
>
> No, I see Popper rather differently (though I will not pretend to be any
> kind of expert). I see him as trying to introduce logic to the idea of the
> scientific method and, with it, defining criteria that decide what is
> science and what is 'pseudo-science' (patronising, what?). As I have said on
> another message board, science and logic don't mix - not at this level at
> least. It is entirely wrong for Popper or anyone else to attempt to impose
> definitions that limit the scope of science, which after all is primarily
> about understanding, even if this means using tentative non-falsifiable
> conjectures. For me, science can only be a nebulous concept.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >We agree about the strangeness.
> >(Personally I find Popper more interesting once we get beyond the
> >philosophy of science stuff. Like any wise man he was still learning
> >to the end.)
> >Ian
> >
> >On 3/20/07, Tom Milner-Gulland <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >> Ian, I was trying to point up the dodginess of the notion of falsification,
> >> when the grounds are nothing more than a test that doesn't go the way your
> >> hypothesis might suggest it would. Nothing in science should be laid down
> >> quite so definitively as Popper would like (i.e. in his definitions).
> >> Reality is **stra-a-ange**, man....
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Tom
> >>
> >=========================================================================
>
|