|
Thanks, Jack. Interesting to read. "False negatives": theories
which seemed to be proven false, but were inappropriately applied,
misunderstood, or otherwise bungled by how the experiments were conducted. False
positives are theories which seem to have been proven correct, but are in fact
not correct (at least not as general theories). The only reason they seem to
have been proven correct was due to aspects unrelated to the system or the
theory, such as limited sampling (a few types of only a couple classes of
systems) and/or limited analysis of results, etc.
I tend to agree with a lot of what is ascribed to Popper as his way
of looking at science, however I see some troubling inconsistencies in the
reasoning used. My analysis below:
Mathematical certainty is a myth, a fictional creation requiring
"suspension of disbelief" just like the Harry Potter stories are/do. It's ironic
that the argument used to point out the flaws in science has actually bought
into the mindset of that aspect in science that causes the flaws. Anyone who
trusts mathematical certainty in a complex world is in for a whole lot of side
effects.
It is this search for generality of scientific
> theories that
precludes our establishing their definite proof.
I see this as being backwards. The more general the applicability,
the more definite the proof. It is the very specific theories which I see as
being fundamentally flawed because they only apply to a narrow band of
contextual conditions, which is not the way the universe is.
> It is difficult to trust what cannot be proved and here Karl Popper
> overturns the argument by stating that proof is not necessary but what
> is important is the concept of falsifiability
Was Karl Popper religious? Just wondering... because lately it
seems to me that humanity, as a species, is engaged in a massive
global effort to kill one another/itself over and out of a deep, unwavering
trust in (and love for) "that which cannot be proved". Some religious
description of God has been the motivation for an awful lot of intractable
hatred among humans throughout our history! The above phrase
really begs the question: What is "proof"? Proof, in my view, is one of
those "in-the-eye-of-the-beholder" concepts, like "beauty".
"Falsifiability". Now, there's a word! I tend to think that's not
the word they meant to use. I think they wanted something like "refutation".
Falsifiability means "the ability to be falsified". That reminds me of the
recent discussion here about simulation and mimicry... (which tend, in
experiments, to generate "false positives" as far as objective
quantifiable proof of some theory is concerned...)
Having said all that, though, I do agree that the more
often some theory seems to be proven false, the more likely it
becomes that the theory is either false or else it's not a
general theory.
Judith
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 12:32
PM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Karl Popper/False
positives...
From:
http://www.users.totalise.co.uk/~idmon/zphil1.htm
>
In epistemology we want to know why we think our beleifs about the
>
world are true. In the work of Popper we are looking specifically
>
about the theories upon which science is based. The case of scientific
> theories presents us with particular problems. These are all to do
> with the lack of any direct or definite proof or disproof of the
truth
> of scientific theories, thus how do we choose between
conflicting
> theories? With the absence of a decision process is
science a rational
> process as we have been led to beleive, or are we
faced with a kind of
> science fetishism which cloaks itself in reason
but has no real validity.
>
> Science aims at theories which
explain natural phenomena. More
> precisely, science is looking for
theories which tell us about the
> causation of phenomena and they aim
at generality, explaining a
> particular effect by showing it to be
caused by some general
> regularity of nature. It is this search for
generality of scientific
> theories that precludes our establishing
their definite proof. We can
> examine only a very small proportion of
all the cases covered by a
> general theory which is intended to apply
over all space and time as
> part of its claim. So, because of their
generality we cannot verify
> scientific theories or even be sure they
are probable with anything
> like mathematical certainty. Therefore how
can we trust them?
>
> It is difficult to trust what cannot be
proved and here Karl Popper
> overturns the argument by stating that
proof is not necesarry but what
> is important is the concept of
falsifiability
> <http://www.users.totalise.co.uk/%7Eidmon/zlogcona.htm>.
Precisely
> because of the universality of a general scientific theory
which
> states that all phenomena of a certain class have such and such
> characteristics, only one counter-example is needed to show that the
> theory is false. Science should attempt to submit theories to the
most
> stringent testing possible and make predictions which have not
yet
> been tested. Poppers favourite example is Einsteins special
theory of
> relativity which in 1905 predicted that light was bent by
heavenly
> bodies, this was not tested until the eclipse of the sun in
1919. Thus
> theories which can easily be tested will be weeded out
quickly if
> false and those that survive can be retained, but even
these can only
> be kept on a provisional basis. The problem of
induction
> <http://www.users.totalise.co.uk/%7Eidmon/zlogcona.htm>
prevents the
> passing of the tests proving the correctness of the
theory.
>
> Therfore science is rational in Poppers view because
though complete
> proof is impossible it follows a critical approach
testing theories
> against the natural world and making predictions for
as yet
> undiscoverd effects.
> This thesis was first elucidated
in The Logic of Scientific Discovery
> <http://www.users.totalise.co.uk/%7Eidmon/zlogcona.htm>
>
That
says it better than I did. False negatives?
Jack
Judith Rosen
wrote:
> *****Jack, *
> **
> *So, what Karl Popper was
saying was that there's no such thing as a
> "false negative", right?
There are false positives, but not false
> negatives? Hmmm..... I'm not
sure I agree with that. I'll have to give
> it some thought and figure
out why my alarms go off at that idea.*
> **
> *Judith*
>
**
>
> Jack Park wrote: *Karl Popper also said that.
> I
don't recall him using "sometimes". My recollection is that "negate
>
and prove that" is the only way to "prove" anything, according to
Popper.
>
> Jack
>
|