[extropy-chat] Fwd: Re: Popper and QT.

[KAZ]

----- Original Message ----
From: John K Clark <jonkc at att.net>
To: gts_2000 at yahoo.com; ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 12:18:11 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Re: Popper and QT.


gts <gts_2000 at yahoo.com>

> > Popper for example would probably question even your
> > suggestion that scientific facts can be discovered.

> So in other words you don't think Popper was very bright.

Actually, I doubt that's what he meant...Popper seems to have been brighter than most human beings, able to understand the principle of fallibility which he probably is implying in the above. All scientific "facts" are predecated on the assumption that human observation is factual, when this cannot be proven beyond all doubt.

> According to Popper's own holly dogma that idea is nonsense because it can
> never be disproved. As for me, I believe it is a fact that Einstein's 
> physics comes closer to describing the way the world works than Newton's
> physics. If Popper wanted to convince me his philosophy had real value all
> he'd have to do is come up with a theory that explained the world better
> than Einstein; if he really has a deep and unique perception of how science
> really works it should be easy.

No, because you are essentially stating that you are basing your belief on faith, which makes changing your mind as difficult as changing the mind of a creationist.
 
Popper was making observations about knowledge which are very much truisms, and yet which most people refuse to accept, because they have this impression of their perceptions of reality as somehow being absolute and unquestionable. 
 
Popper argued that it's a terrible mistake to "defend" previous knowledge, that it should always be seen as potentially flawed, as an assumption we're going on mainly for practical reasons, because it is the best approximation we have come up with so far. He opposed the bureaucratic thinking of academics who "defend" ideas, even in the face of evidence of their failure or another thing's greater success. I see no flaw in his reasoning, except that it's socially unacceptable.
 
Likewise his belief that something is not really science unless it can pass strict rules of positive/negative verification. This offends pseudoscientists in psychology, socialist economics, et cetera, but only because it points out the gap between them and real science, not because he's actually wrong.
 
> If they're really on to something then why aren't great scientific
> philosopher's also great scientists?

Hmmm...I think Popper would say that the obvious reason philosophers aren't scientists is that they don't follow scientific principles. They try to "reason out" things in order to push their preconceived notions, without verifying and validating their assumptions in tests which leave no room for error.
 
Popper is hated by pseudoscientific types because he demanded people take responsibility for indefinitely proving and supporting their claims. 
--
Words of the Socialists:
If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist
in the year 2000.  -- Paul Erlich, Environmental guru
                      Addressing Britain's Institute of Technology, 1969
E-Mail: KazVorpal at yahoo.com
Yahoo Messenger/AIM/AOL: KazVorpal
MSN Messenger: KazVorpal at yahoo.com
ICQ: 1912557
http://360.yahoo.com/kazvorpal