I think the important task right now is to spread the ideas that Nick has packaged and at the same time to promote the most helpful interpretation of Popper's ideas, which to my mind amounts to the same thing.

 

The misrepresentation of Popper, under the label of falsificationism, is a very strange phenomenon but it turns up time after time as I am conducting a systematic review of (a) introductory books and (b) "state of the philosophical nation" books.

 

Books of the first kind mention Popperian falsificationism, say it does not work and proceed to other authors.

 

Books of the second kind often enough do not mention Popper at all. Examples are Brian Leiter (ed) The Future for Philosophy, Clarendon Press, 2004, a recent collection edited by O'Hear on philosophy in the third millenium and a collection of interviews by Baggini and Strangeroom "What philosophers think".

 

It seems that my perspective is rather different from most Popper commentary, partly because I was operating in a kind of wisdom mode before ever reading Popper. Concern with the food and hunger situation led me into Agricultural Science (not really the problem) then to Sociology (an intellectual disaster area). Popper's ideas reinforced all the tendencies that I had to work on a range of problems, across discpiplines, looking for both scientific unification and human outcomes.

 

I suppose sometime I will have to come to grips with Nick's arguments about the shortcomings of Popper's work but I don't want a difference of interpretation here to overshadow the overwhelming mass of views and objectives that we share.

 

In addition to spreading shared views I want to make the case for the classical liberal agenda which is the best way that I can see to approach our  social, economic and political problems. There is more good in economics and political economy than most people realise but the most important school of thought (the Austrians) has been marginalised, rather like Popper's philosophy. The Austrians themselves do not like Popper (some hate him) so there is a challenging task ahead!

 

This is my take on the Austrians, in the context of the debate about deregulation in Australia.

 

http://www.the-rathouse.com/hayaustriankey.html

 

And this is how I see the synergy of Popper and the other Austrians.

 

http://www.the-rathouse.com/RC_PopperPaper.html

 

Rafe Champion

Sydney

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: [log in to unmask]">Ian Glendinning

To: [log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]

Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 6:44 AM

Subject: Re: What is this thing called falsificationism? RE: Review of Science and the Pursuit of Wisdom

 

Clearly Rafe, from a philosophy (of science) perspective, "Poppers falsificationism" is a shorthand for just one aspect of Poppers work.

 

But it is the single piece of Philosophy of Science that most publicly visible scientists ever claim to use.

ie it may not be Poppers "fault" (whatever that means) - but it is "the problem" of science without wisdom.

 

Regards

Ian

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 2:30 AM, CHAMPION, Rafe <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

(With a nod to Alan Chalmers "What is this thing called science?)

It is interesting to read in the review the way the Wisdom approach is described "Briefly speaking, science is rational to the extent that it solves our personal, social and global problems, and this is what Popper's falsificationism disregards. According to Popper's falsificationism, a theory is scientific only if it is falsifiable."

This is not a fair comment on Popper. His position on testing is a small fragment of his philosophy of science, albeit the point where he most obviously challenged the positivists. In addition, his philosophy of science is only a fragment of his total work which includes one of the most important books on political philosophy of the 20th century.

It seems that the view is widespread that Popper's philosophy of science  can be summed under the label "falsificationism". Problems with falsification are then noted and Popper is relegated to the "out of date", "superseded" or "did some interesting work back in the 1930s".

This perception can possibly be sourced to Lakatos who used it as a platform to launch his own brand of methodology, which has burned up a lot of effort to little purpose. Alan Chalmers also contributed with his very popular and well read text, which I reviewed in glowing terms until the extent of the muddle over falsification became impossible to overlook. My review now contains some caveats although I still recommend the book.  http://www.the-rathouse.com/shortreviews/WhatisThisThingCalledScience.html

Rafe Champion

 

 

 

 

 

______________________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it and notify the sender. Views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, and are not necessarily the views of NSW Health.
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned for the NSW Department of Health by the MessageLabs Email Security System. The Department regularly monitors emails and attachments to ensure compliance with its Electronic Messaging Policy.
_____________________________________________________________________

 

________________
This email has been scanned for the NSW Department of Health by the MessageLabs Email Security System. The Department regularly monitors emails and attachments to ensure compliance with its Electronic Messaging Policy.
_____________________________________________________________________