Re: Karl Popper/False positives...

[Jerry Zhu <***>]

Popper's corroboration problem as well as Marx's class
struggle (social Darwinism) are both based on
biological model that is Darwin's natual selection and
survive the fittest. As Darwin's model is widely
considered flawed even Darwin himself, so are Popper
and Marx's theory.  Popper's falsification has
circular problem that is the K claim is falsified by
the same background K that created K claim.
Postmodernist Lyotard, claimed that scientific
knowledge can not legitimate itself, the criteria by
which something qualified as scientific were
determined by science itself. To Lyotard, scientific
knowledge can only be legitimated by a more gernal
kind of knowledge, that is narrative knowledge. 
Lyotard rejects an interpretation of science as
representing the totality of all true knowledge, which
is the dream of modernism. THe understanding of
knowledge can only portrayed as plurality of smaller
stories that function well within particular contexts
they apply.  

Tarski formulated a theory of truth as the assertion
of described statement in an object language by a
metalanguage.  In another word, truth can not be
proved by the same language, it must correspond to
actual afair of another language.  Therefore truth is
not universal or abosolute, it is an assertion of a
sentence in one language by sentences of another
language.

I wonder how is truth defined by Popper. Anybody?

Judith said "the only kind of models that will really
help us decide good policy are biological models of
the relational type."

I wonder how Judith interprets biological models of
the relational type.  Is Darwin's model relational
type? can you elaborate some biological models that
are relational as well as not? Classic Physics used to
be considerred as the normal model for all huam
knowledge at a time. Are we at the time that classical
physics is replaced by relational biological models?
(eventhough I don't know what it means)  Is
sociological model reducible to biological model?

Cheers

Jerry Zhu



--- John Kineman <***> wrote:

> Judy and Jack,
> 
> I just want to reinforce Jack's interpretation of
> epistemology here. 
> What he writes is very recognizable from all my
> training in the subject. 
> The other question is whether it is "right" or not,
> i.e., given that the 
> statements do represent Popper fairly well, are they
> yet correct?
> 
> I'd say it is best to just accept the logic of
> Popper in its own right. 
> It has been fairly well scrutinized. However, it is
> quite limited in 
> many regards. Most modern scientists (who am I to
> know "most" - but this 
> is my impression from reading) are no longer
> positivists in the 
> HD-methodology sense, which has been attributed to
> Bacon and Popper 
> among others. The idea of strict falsification of
> hypotheses is accepted 
> as logically valid, but not general enough to cover
> all paths to truth. 
> Even Popper recognized this later in life and was
> forced to add his 
> Metaphysical Research Program (MRP) as part of the
> scientific 
> enterprise. Thomas Kuhn also did this in his theory
> of scientific 
> revolutions. So I don't think we need to reinvent
> that discourse - there 
> is much more to science than positivism. These
> specific ideas about 
> falsifiability, etc. are part of the positivist
> program, and picking at 
> the logic of that is probably a fruitless endeavor.
> The logic will hold 
> up, but its applicability is what is in question.
> 
> John K.
> 
> Judith Rosen wrote:
> 
> > 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:
> >
> > >  From:
> > http://www.users.totalise.co.uk/~idmon/zphil1.htm 
> >
>
<http://www.users.totalise.co.uk/%7Eidmon/zphil1.htm>:
> > 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?
> >  
> > 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
> >  
> >
> >      
> >     From: Jack Park <mailto:***>
> >     To: ***
> <mailto:***>
> >     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
> >    
>
<http://www.users.totalise.co.uk/%7Eidmon/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.
> 
=== message truncated ===



                
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail