pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier) (07/08/87)
(Gibbons v. Ogden) writes: (Craig Werner) writes: >> >> Just so we deal in no uncertain terms: >> >> Here is the best definition of the domain of science that I have >>ever heard formulated: >>> [a very concise definition of science in terms of falsification] >> >That's very nice, Craig. But, is "disproving" a scientific concept? What, then, >philosophically, is a "disproof" or a "disproof" of the "contrary" (presumably, >a "proof")? If your theory is scientific (the theory that science deals with >disprovable assertions), then exists some assertions in the theory which is >disprovable. But then these assertions deal with the possibility of disprove, >implying the impossibility of disprove in these assertions, which is a >contradiction, and so the theory is not scientific. Alas, this is hairy-er >than Vatican III, whenever it comes. > >-- This guy seems to be from the "Majicthize & Vroomfondel school of philosohy" (we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty). Seriously Gibbons, your response is cute, but irrelevent. Read carefully. Craig was offering a DEFINITION, not a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. Definitions are not proven or disproven, they are given as terms for discussion and either accepted by the participants of the discussion or not. If a suitible definition cannot be found, the discussion collapses. I, for one, think it is a good concise statement of the important aspects of science (I do wish you would reference it, craig). You are, of course, free to reject the definition. If you do, we ask that you define what you mean when you say "science" so that we can evaluate your arguments in the proper context, or simply reject your definition and all arguments based on it. It should be noted that, as I have said in this forum before, falsifiability is concidered an absolutly essential aspect of a scientific theory--at least by all reputable scientists. tony pell@boulder.colorado.edu molecular etc. bio. boulder, co. 80309-0347
fulk@rochester.arpa (Mark Fulk) (07/08/87)
The main reference for the "falsification" theory of science has to be
Karl Popper, _The Logic of Scientific Discovery_. A variant point of
view can be found in Alfred Jules Ayer's book _Language, Thought, and
Logic_. Both are classics and are required reading for anyone discussing
philosophy of science.
That much said, there are indeed problems with Popper's philosophy.
For criticisms, read the works of Imre Lakatos and Thomas Kuhn; not
that I agree with everything they say either. In case you're interested
(probably not, but I'll say it anyway) I like the notions of Charles
Sanders Peirce the best, and I don't believe that they have received
proper attention. He is the founder of pragmaticism, which has often
been vulgarized under the name pragmatism. If you read criticisms
of pragmatic philosophy, be sure that Peirce's thought is being directly
addressed and not the thought of Thomas Dewey or the other, later,
pragmatic philosophers.
In a nutshell:
Lakatos: "Scientific theories float in seas of anomalies." That is,
the explanatory power of a scientific theory is normally (at least so
far) minuscule compared to the mass of phenomena the theory attempts to
explain.
Kuhn: Paraphrased: Science is more driven by the social, economic, etc.
concerns of its practitioners than by any logic of discoveries. Major
changes in scientific theories ("paradigm shifts") are more due to the
aging and death of old believers than to evidence, and do not usually
increase the truthfulness of theories.
Peirce: The purpose of science is to allow us better ability to
predict the behavior of the world, and to better alter it. Scientific
theories are never complete explanations of reality, but are rather
elements in a sequence of inaccurate, but improving models. The existence
of "absolute truth" or "absolute reality" can be argued either way, but
is essentially irrelevant to science.warren@pluto.UUCP (Warren Burstein) (07/09/87)
Note: this may be a reposting, outgoing news has been buggy lately What does any of this have to do with sci.research sci.med talk.rumors or misc.headlines? I know it once did, now it belongs in talk.philosophy.misc -- /|/~\~~\ The entire world Warren Burstein |__/__/_/ is a very narrow carrot. | But the farmer philabs!tg!pluto!warren / is not afraid at all. Why doesn't life come with subtitles?
shafto@aurora.UUCP (07/09/87)
For an interesting perspective on the nature of science, more or less in the spirit of Lakatos (& with an epigram from Lakatos's _Proofs and Refutations_, at least in the draft that I've seen), see the forthcoming or recently published Scientific Discovery: An Account of the Creative Processes by Patrick W. Langley, Herbert A. Simon, Gary L. Bradshaw, & Jan M. Zytkow MIT Press
ekwok@mipos3.UUCP (Gibbons v. Ogden) (07/09/87)
In article <828@mipos3.UUCP> ekwok@mipos3.UUCP (Gibbons v. Ogden) writes: >In article <1537@sigi.Colorado.EDU> pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier) writes: > >>This guy seems to be from the "Majicthize & Vroomfondel school of philosohy" >>(we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty). >>Seriously Gibbons, your response is cute, but irrelevent. Read carefully. >>Craig was offering a DEFINITION, not a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. >> >>Definitions are not proven or disproven, they are given as terms for discussion >>and either accepted by the participants of the discussion or not. If a >>suitible definition cannot be found, the discussion collapses. I, for one, >>think it is a good concise statement of the important aspects of science >>(I do wish you would reference it, craig). >>You are, of course, free to reject the definition. If you do, we ask that >>you define what you mean when you say "science" so that we can evaluate your >>arguments in the proper context, or simply reject your definition and >>all arguments based on it. It should be noted that, as I have said in this >>forum before, falsifiability is concidered an absolutly essential aspect of a >>scientific theory--at least by all reputable scientists. >> > Seriously, Anthony, don't you agree that a definition needs to be self-consistent? My point was an attempt to point out that the definition was trying to define itself, which (to me, at least) makes no sense at all. By saying that something is not science if it cannot be disproved, it is implicitly implied that the process of "disproving" (or equivalently "proving") is a concept independent of science. Otherwise, the definition can be reduced to the tautology, "everything is in science unless it is not in science". I am quite sure that eminent philosophers have used that as a working (emphasis) definition in a carefully defined domain, probably carefully excluded the self-definition aspects of the claim. I understand what is the "scientific method", as I am sure you do. But I don't understand what is "science", and especially do not understand if "methods of science" (not necessarily the "scientific method") helps us to understand it. Then my question will be "Is there an understanding of what science is, outside of the methods of science? and, how do we know such methods are valid, without using the scientific method to challenge it?" And, please, do not overwhelm me with quotes from eminent philosophers, I just want an explanation in simple English. Calling a deer a horse does not make it a horse, like an old Chinese adage says. --
jrw@notecnirp.UUCP (07/09/87)
In article <768@aurora.UUCP> shafto@aurora.UUCP (Michael Shafto) writes: > >For an interesting perspective on the nature of science, >more or less in the spirit of Lakatos . . . [effete intellectual >blather] . . . > Can we keep this tedious "definition of science" crap out of Misc.Headlines? Here I only want to see hard-hitting, breathless reports of fast-breaking news stories, preferably written in short, choppy sentences. I want to read turgid prose, meaty prose, prose with hair on it. I want to read what happens when it happens as it happens, and I want to read it in 3-line paragraphs. Misc.Headlines: USENET's only potentially Pulitzer-Prize-winning newsgroup.
shafto@aurora.UUCP (Michael Shafto) (07/10/87)
In article <5528@princeton.Princeton.EDU>, jrw@notecnirp.Princeton.EDU (Jeffrey Westbrook) writes: > > Can we keep this tedious "definition of science" crap out of > Misc.Headlines? > prose, prose with hair on it. I want to read what happens when it > [ ... two-fisted Hemingway-style blather ... ] Golly, Jeff, I'm glad you're on the case now that E. B. White has passed on. My effete intellectual blather apparently trespassed on your turf as an innocent side-effect of my ineptly TRYING to post it to sci.research.
pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier) (07/10/87)
ving") is a concept independent of science. Otherwise, the definition >can be reduced to the tautology, "everything is in science unless it is not >in science". > >(no) quotes from eminent philosophers, >I just want an explanation in simple English. You and I apparently read different defintions. I saw no place in the definition where it claimed itself to be scientific. But it seems you are addressing an important point. The following statements I believe to be true. they are not scientific: Science is not the only valid way to attempt to understand the universe; like the other ways, it has a realm of aplicability. This implies a realm(s) in which science does not apply. In these realms, it cannot even ask, let alone answer, the important questions. What are the boundries of this realm of aplicability for science? good question. It is not a question that can be addressed scientifically, as I think you try to point out. Science cannot define its own limits. NO MEASURING INSTRUMENT CAN BE USED TO DEFINE THE LIMITS OF ITS OWN ACCURACY. yes, this does make science a tautology. But I would argue *ad absurdum* that my belief that I exist is also a tautology. The best we as scientists can do is look for common aspects of that which we call science as an attempt to define our realm of applicability from within. For this we turn to logic--another great tautology. Science, we assert, needs to fit the form of logic. The test of falsification is a long-standing part of that form. (stop here if you are not interested in more of my ramblings on religion) For example: In many classic dialogues on the topic of the existence of god or her nature. Many people wrote "logical" proofs of the existence of god. One of the main objections to these was through the test of falsification. The fundamentalist who states "god loves her children" will not admit evidence to the contrary. When confronted with natural disasters and infants suffering, the definition of "love" is merely altered to alow this ("god's love is different (greater) than the way we define it). the definition is qualified to the point where there is no meaning left. the "logical" god dies a death by 1000 qualification. I choose this example because it illustrates a point. The logician has not disproved god. He has merely shown that the arguments for the existence of god are not logical. god is outside the realm of applicability of logic and therefore that of its child, science. The only logical response to the question "is there a god" is "I dunno." Scientists are usually comfortable with that. There are few militant atheist scientists. It is only when the religious fanatic says "my belief is as scientific as yours," vis a vis creationism etc., that we must say "no, we have rules for that. your science doesn't cut it." There, i didn't quote eminent philosophers. But, since there is a reason why they are eminent and I am not, I might suggest David Hume's "dialogues on natural religion," Decartes and Kant were also very good at this sort of thing. -tony you know where i live.