tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post112600982881252182..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: How not to be creativeUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-43326317445978422292007-09-15T09:02:00.000-04:002007-09-15T09:02:00.000-04:00Johan,no, the argument is not good, because Popper...Johan,<BR/><BR/>no, the argument is not good, because Popper's falsification applies to empirical claims, not to logical ones.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, philosophers of science have long since moved on from falsificationism, so I don't think anyone needs an argument about its validity.<BR/><BR/>Your argument is similar to what got logical positivism in trouble, but in that case logical positivists made the mistake of stating that any sentence (not just empirically based statements) that could not be verified was meaningless, which clearly includes also logical stands such a positivism itself.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-34496651799888161542007-09-15T06:18:00.000-04:002007-09-15T06:18:00.000-04:00Hej Mr. Pigliucci!If you got the time...What do yo...Hej Mr. Pigliucci!<BR/><BR/>If you got the time...<BR/><BR/>What do you say about the following argument:<BR/><BR/><B>P1:</B> According to Popper you should only believe that which can be falsified.<BR/><B>P2:</B> Poppers falsifiability criterium can't be falsified.<BR/><B>S3:</B> You should <B>not</B> believe in Poppers falsifiabilty criterium.<BR/><BR/>Is this argument valid?<BR/><BR/>Is this one of the reasons why testability is a better indicator for "what science is"?<BR/><BR/>(This question came up in a discussion with a creationist.)<BR/><BR/>Best wishes,<BR/>Johan Karlsson (Sweden)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-24025186420439071392007-02-18T21:23:00.000-05:002007-02-18T21:23:00.000-05:00It's funny you mention Popper since Wason created ...It's funny you mention Popper since Wason created the "2,4,6" task to highlight inconsistencies (in Wasons’ opinion) with Popper’s belief in logical intuition.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1169728990331181622007-01-25T07:43:00.000-05:002007-01-25T07:43:00.000-05:00Johan,it is in fact unfortunate that so many scien...Johan,<BR/><BR/>it is in fact unfortunate that so many scientists bring up falsificationism in conjunction with pseudoscience and creationism. For example, by that criterion, both astrology and young earth creationism are, in fact, sciences. Their statements can be, and have been, falsified.<BR/><BR/>Also, by that criterion, major scientific theories would not be falsifiable. The history of science is full of theories (beginning with Copernicus') where a theory initially could not explain all observations, and yet seemed enough of a good candidate to suspend judgment, or even to endorse it provisionally, until more empirical data could help to further assess it.<BR/><BR/>The real difference between science and non-science (briefly, I'm just now writing a whole book on this!) is that scientific hypotheses ought to be empirically testable. But testability isn't the same as falsifiability, and there is no implication that one single failed test throws out the whole thing.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1169721201914498412007-01-25T05:33:00.000-05:002007-01-25T05:33:00.000-05:00Massimo,Thanks for the answer (unfortunately I can...Massimo,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the answer (unfortunately I can't get hold of the articles :( )<BR/><BR/>Just one more quick thought...<BR/><BR/>In another post you wrote:<BR/>"contemporary philosophers have moved beyond falsificationism, and admit that the boundary separating good science, bad science, and pseudoscience is somewhat fuzzy"<BR/><BR/>I'm rather new to the philosophy of science, but I've got the impression that the ability to, at least in theory, falsificate a theory is the most important demarcation criterium. It also seems to be the cornerstone in the critique of ID/creationism.<BR/><BR/>Cheers<BR/>Johan, Sweden<BR/><BR/>(Sorry if my English is out of order ;))Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1169657780009873672007-01-24T11:56:00.000-05:002007-01-24T11:56:00.000-05:00Johan, my reservations about Popper are elaborated...Johan, my reservations about Popper are elaborated in two articles I published for Skeptical Inquirer:<BR/><BR/>Pigliucci, M. (2004). Did Popper refute evolution? Skeptical Inquirer. 28(5): 15.<BR/><BR/>Pigliucci, M. (2004). Philosophy of science 101. Skeptical Inquirer. 28(3): 22-23.<BR/><BR/>Basically, the idea is that falsificationism doesn't really work, it's not the way science proceeds, if you look at the historical record.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1169643196239511322007-01-24T07:53:00.000-05:002007-01-24T07:53:00.000-05:00Massimo, if you got the time...Can you elaborate w...Massimo, if you got the time...<BR/><BR/>Can you elaborate what you mean with this: "I do have reservations about Popper".<BR/><BR/>(Maybe you already has done this in another post?)<BR/><BR/>Johan, SwedenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1126017961901148942005-09-06T10:46:00.000-04:002005-09-06T10:46:00.000-04:00I meant "ingenuitive"its always helpful when one c...I meant "ingenuitive"<BR/><BR/>its always helpful when one can spell, too....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1126017783706079002005-09-06T10:43:00.000-04:002005-09-06T10:43:00.000-04:00My dad, his dad, his brothers and some of his neph...My dad, his dad, his brothers and some of his nephews are inventors, with various patents for practical and technical things. (my dad was promoted from machinist to engineer because of his inventions and whatnot) I think it interesting that so many people of the same family have the same ingentive mindset.<BR/><BR/>As your writer suggested, they knew something about breaking patterns of thinking on problems that most people do not.<BR/><BR/>calAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com