[ExI] ​Popper and unscientific theories

[Dan TheBookMan]

On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 9:24 AM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com>
wrote:
>> That doesn't really answer my question, which was Why do you think
>> one view is scientific and the other isn't? It wasn't which one do you
> think more likely to be the case.
>
> The answer to the question "is X true?" has an objective answer even if
you
> don't know what it is, but the answer to the question "is X scientific?"
is
> subjective. Popper and I have different opinions on the subject.

Okay, so then you're retracting your earlier statement. This one:

"Despite what Popper might say I think #1 is the more scientific
conclusion."

Or you can reword it to be consistent with your view of what's scientific
being purely subjective.

And, actually, Popper believed that demarcation between science and
non-science was objective. Of course, you disagree with him, but that's
different than, say, you and he agreeing that it's subjective and just
having different subjective positions.

Also, there are huge and long debates over what Popper meant and whether
he's correct. I bring this up because, like you did with philosophy in
general and Mortimer J. Adler a few months ago, it appears you are equating
"philosophy of science" with "Popper's particular views on philosophy of
science." Please don't repeat that error.

>> Also, did Popper actually hold this view?
>
> Probably not, I doubt if Popper knew much about science in general or the
Big Bang
> Theory in particular,

I think you're wrong there. He wrote a whole book on quantum mechanics and
even heard a lecture given by Einstein. Have you read much Popper beyond
quoting from his autobiography and a scattering of essays?

It might be best for you to assume that a philosopher who specializes in
philosophy of science -- and there are many of these, from Carnap and
Hempel to Lawrence Sklar and Philip Kitcher to Paul Thagard and Laura
Reutsche. They tend to have more than a passing acquaintance with the
sciences they focus on -- be they general relativity (Sklar), biology
(Kitcher), or quantum field theory (Reutsche).

> but he did have an opinion on Evolution. As late as 1976 Popper says i
> n chapter 37 of
> his book "Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography":
>
>  "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical
research program".
>
> This
>  is not something to make Popper fans or fans of philosophers of science
proud.

See above. Very important that you NOT conflate "philosophy of science"
with the views of Karl Popper. Let me try to give you an analogy here. Marx
wrote many ridiculous things about economics, IMO. Do you believe
economists should be ashamed of this? Do you believe all economists are
Marxists? Do you believe anyone who uses economic theories or an economic
approach must needs be a Marxist or an heir to Marx's thought?

> Finally, two years later in 1978 at the age of 76 and 119 years after the
publication
> of "The Origin Of Species", perhaps the greatest scientific book ever
written,
> Popper belatedly said:
>
>  “I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the
theory of
> natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a
recantation”.
>
> Popper came to the conclusion that this Darwin whippersnapper might be
onto
> something after all in his 1978 (1978!!) lecture "Natural Selection and
the
> Emergence of Mind".  Better late than never I guess, but for most of his
life
> Popper did not approve of Evolution and his opposition did a lot of harm,
to this
> day Bible thumpers use Popper quotations in their legal briefs to try to
get
> creationism taught in the classroom.

So? What are folk to do? Censor themselves for fear someone might take
their words out of context and use them for other ends, such as
Creationists wanting to get their views in classrooms? Shouldn't thinkers
be encouraged to be bold rather than always be wary?

Actually, that the demarcation problem is used to decide a legal case is a
big problem here. In my reading, there is no widely accepted view on
demarcation within the philosophy of science community. That shouldn't
matter. Were education not a government program, this wouldn't matter. In
fact, from a pedagogical perspective, it shouldn't matter for intro to
biology courses, which would likely be geared toward getting the broadly
accepted views in a field down -- rather than looking at alternatives in
any depth. Surely, alternatives to the reigning paradigm might be raised --
like talking about alchemy or phlogiston theory in a chemistry 101 class,
but there wouldn't equal time given. If someone were studying more higher
level courses on philosophy of science or history of science, then these
sorts of things would likely be given more time. But for grade school kids,
it seems about as appropriate or useful as introducing kids learning
fractions to non-standard analysis would be.

Regards,

Dan
  See my latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," at:
http://mybook.to/Gurlitt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160611/1a532ff7/attachment.html>