Text 1248, 100 rader
Skriven 2004-12-30 15:57:00 av Peter F (1:278/230)
Ärende: DebunkingCementig
=========================


"EKurtz99" <EKurtz99@TwilightZone.com> wrote in message
news:cqvde4$157r$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
> His [Popper's] criterion of falsifiability was intended to separate what 
> he regarded as pseudoscience (Marxism, Freudian theory, astrology) from real 
> science (of which physics was the Jewel in the Crown)
> 

This has been an on-the-whole nice and lucid
'philosophy of sciencical' discussion. 

Even so, I would like to voice my dislike of something 
to do with what you chose to write; because it has an effect 
as would an ignorantly placed conduit - one that maintains 
(or facilitates further cognitive cementation) of a 
falsely assumptive association. 
Specifically, the association that 
holds Freud's theorizing as being as untrue 
or scientifically unsupported as astrology.

[Apropos which, Marx theorizing was a 
pattern-recognizing pursuit/preoccupation that 
resulted in a compelling but gravely deficient model 
of the socioeconomic aspect of (What Is going on 
in the realm of) human activities. As it happened 
this deficiency can be defined (rather precisely) as the  
the field of philosophical and scientific 
(practically and systematically experimental) 
inquiry that Freud fumbled in - and did so with 
a fair amount of success. 
It deserve to be judged as "fair" (or better) considering 
all his constraints: That is, his (approximately understandable) internal 
"blockages" and biases, and the, the (to his efforts contemporary) 
'rudimentary state' of relevant sciences at the time. (Of course especially 
the field of Neurobiology.)]

That's all I needed to get off my chest. :-)

Cheers

P













> QUOTE
> ...the problem which I tried to solve by proposing the criterion of 
> falsifiability was neither a problem of meaningfulness or significance, nor 
> a problem of truth or acceptability. It was the problem of drawing a line 
> (as well as this can be done) between the statements, or systems of 
> statements, of the empirical sciences, and all other statements - whether 
> they are of a religious or of a metaphysical character, or simply 
> pseudo-scientific. Years later - it must have been in 1928 or 1929 - I 
> called this first problem of mine the "problem of demarcation." The 
> criterion of falsifiability is a solution to this problem of demarcation, 
> for it says that statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked 
> as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable, 
> observations.
> END QUOTE
> Conjectures and Refutations (1963) 
> http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html
> 
> It would be easy to extend the final sentence to include a high degree of 
> likeliness/unlikliness without losing the basic distinction.
> 
> > We make models that are idealized, define things like fitness that are
> > meaningful in those models, and then try to refine the models.  But some
> > of the "skeptics" want definitions of things like fitness that will be 
> > able
> > to work in the real world.  They don't realize that in doing this, they
> > in effect erect their own not-quite-real models, but without being 
> > explicit
> > about it.  When a "skeptic" says that, by fitness I mean number of 
> > offspring
> > per parent (or whatever), they implicitly simplify the situation by 
> > ignoring
> > overlapping generations, and a bunch of other phenomena.
> 
> Indeed, the skeptic that you are referring supports this contention not with 
> reason but with Darwinian authority; Popper would not approve.
> 
> 
>
---
ū RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info@bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2á˙* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 12/30/04 3:57:47 PM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)