[ExI] ​Popper and unscientific theories

[John Clark]

On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>> ​>​
>> 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."
>

​I retract nothing because everything I think is subjective; "I think" is
what "subjective" means, I think. You may think differently, I think.

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

​Or I can do neither.​



​> ​
And, actually, Popper believed that demarcation between science and
non-science was objective.

​
That would imply there is a rigid algorithm on how do science, and there
isn't. If there were philosophers of science like Popper would also be a
great scientists, and they aren't.

Ernst Mach was a huge
​
philosopher
​
of science
​
but he was more of a medium size physicist. He wrote his most important
scientific paper in 1887, but the man lived till 1916 and is far better
remembered as a philosopher than
​
as
​
a scientist
​
; as a young man even Einstein liked Mach's philosophy but broke with him
at almost the exact same time Einstein started to become a great scientist
in 1905. Mach
​
spent nearly 30 years on philosophy and in opposing Quantum Mechanics,
Einstein's Theory of Relativity both General and Special, and
​h​
e
​
even opposed
​
the atomic
​
theory of matter. He opposed these superb scientific theories for purely
philosophical reasons I might add.

​> ​
>  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.


​
None of whom were great scientists. And we don't want to forget
​
Auguste Comte
​,​
in 1835
​
this great philosopher determined from his pure philosophical studies that
human beings would never find out what the stars are made of.
​ ​
In 1850 natural philosopher (scientist) Gustav Kirchhoff looked at the
spectrum of stars and found out what
​
they are made of.
​ ​

> ​> ​
> Very important that you NOT conflate "philosophy of science" with the
> views of Karl Popper.
>

​So now it's unfair to criticize the philosophy of science by finding a
stupid quotation from the most famous philosopher of science of our age?
Well then give me a quote from a less famous
philosopher of science
​ that has actually helped scientists ​do science.
Tell me one thing, just one thing, that people who call themselves
philosophers
​ of science​
have discovered in the last
century or so ​
that is deep, clear, precise, unexpected, and true that scientists had not
discovered long before.


> ​> ​
> Marx wrote many ridiculous things about economics, IMO.
>

​I agree.​



> ​> ​
> Do you believe economists should be ashamed of this?
>

​Certainly, just as biologists should be ashamed of
 Trofim Lysenko
​. ​


> ​> ​
> Shouldn't thinkers be encouraged to be bold rather than always be wary?
>

​I think saying as late as 1976 (1976!!) that Darwin was unscientific as
Popper did wasn't being bold, it was being STUPID. ​

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160612/a0a75c03/attachment.html>