[ExI] ​Popper and unscientific theories

[Dan TheBookMan]

On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 5:30 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Whatever. You original claim here was worded very differently.

>> >
>> Or you can reword it to be consistent with your view of what's
scientific being purely subjective.
>
>
> Or I can do neither.

Right.

>> 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.

I'm not sure that follows. One can have a demarcation and yet that wouldn't
provide with more than telling science from non-science. It would tell you,
in other words, which particular scientific theories or positions are
better. My understanding is that Popper believed his demarcation merely
told you which was scientific, but didn't decide amongst scientific
theories as such. For instance, the wave theory of light and phlogiston
theory of burning were (or seem to me to be) scientific according to
Popper's criteria. They also happen to be wrong.

That's also another issue in philosophy of science -- where I believe most
philosophers of science hold that there is no rigid or precise algorithm.

> If there were philosophers of science like Popper would also be a great
scientists, and they aren't.

I'm not sure that follows either. Philosophers of science, like Popper, are
not trying to do science. They're usually trying to explain science and
sometimes venture into how to do science better. Popper's falsification is
wildly popular amongst scientists. So, there's that. (Recall, once more,
I'm not a Popperian.)

> 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 he
> even opposed the atomic
> theory of matter. He opposed these superb scientific theories for purely
> philosophical reasons I might add.

So what? Other philosophers of science -- like Popper -- accepting many
theories -- quantum mechanics and relativity. What does this get you? Mach
was also best, it seems to me, at offering criticisms and alternatives
others reacted against -- others, including Einstein.

>>  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.

I never claimed they were scientists, great or otherwise. They are
philosophers of science -- not scientists. Notice you chopped off the rest
of my paragraph too. Let me help anyone else bothering to read our
discussion with the full paragraph:

"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)."

My point in listing these folks was not to claim they were great
scientists. It was to show that, in general, philosophers of science -- at
least, serious ones -- are acquainted with the sciences they philosophize
about. They are, big fucking surprise, not scientists and don't tend to do
original work in the sciences. Again, not a surprise. The same might be
said of historians of science. Historians of science don't make new
discoveries about cosmology and don't head on over to CERN with new
proposals on particle physics.

> 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.

Comte is important why? There are plenty of folks -- including
philosophers, scientists, and others -- who made bold predictions about
what cannot be discovered and later on were found to be wrong.

>> 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?

How do we go from:

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

to:

2. 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?

Criticize away! All you've tended to do here is conflate the views of
Popper or Mach with philosophy of science in general. This is like someone
quoting the views of those geologists who scoffed at Wegener or bringing up
Kelvin's views on the age of the Earth.

> 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.

Discovered in what field? In philosophy of science or do mean in science?
Because if you're talking about the latter, then it's not their job. One
might just as well turn it around: scientists in general are not all that
good at philosophy of science. They often just tend to be derivative in
this area -- i.e., usually accepting a philosophy of science they like and
learned that was originated by some philosopher.

>> 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.

I disagree. Biologists are not responsible for the idiocies of other
biologists.

>> 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.

Let's restore, once more, my full paragraphs:

"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."

You ignored that in your usual style. Since you've done this so often, I'll
ignore you from here on.

Regards,

Dan
  Sample 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/20160612/9abee475/attachment.html>