Back to Unedited Quotes and Ramblings about Intequinism.
M.Phil - Wetenskapfilosofie (FILM880) - 2014
Dosent: Prof. Renato Coletto
Student: Mr. MD Pienaar
Instansie: Noord-Wes Universiteit
4 February 2014 (one reading)
Popper referred to the ancient atomic Greek philosophy, which postulated a similar epistemology as Bacon and Kant. Objects lose atoms, which forms perceptions in our minds, which are combined with a priori knowledge. Kant argued knowledge is not "pure". Our perceptions are mixed with a type of "digestive" process, which forms knowledges.
"Strict empiricists" opine we should not interfere with experience, which is "pure". Kant disagreed with strict empiricists. Popper's own view is similar to Kant's but not the same. Popper distinguishes between "perceptions" and "observations". A "perception" can be compared with "naive experience" and "observation" is a process whereby experience is planned scientifically. Something "theoretical" precedes observations.
Observations "presuppose" "principles of selection". The "inner states", which change over time, of organisms determine types of perceptions, which are possible for each organism. Each organism is different. A part of experience relates to "expectations" and knowledges are formed primarily when our expectations are not "fulfilled". We then become more aware of our expectations. "Perceptions and observations" are not innate but reactions to expectations are "innate".
With "pre-scientific" knowledge only we live in the "centre" of our "horizons". Popper does not expand on his thought about "centres". He then refers to the bucket theory, which postulates determinism in the sense that we are determined by our experiences. Popper however prefers a view whereby our expectations or hypotheses determine our environment. He called this view the "searchlight theory" in "contradistinction" to the "bucket theory". Observations function as "tests" for hypotheses.
The thought arose that Popper in a way contradicted himself because he philosophised that nothing can be proven true, but on the other hand he said observations function as tests. If nothing can be proven true, what is the purpose of tests. A logical conclusion is that the "tests" relate to probability emphases for inductive processes, which removes the contradiction. Probability theories, according to my example of Wan and Others are results of untruths.
Popper sketches a dialectic process whereby our
expectations (hypotheses) are the inputs of next
observations. Every time we observe, our expectations are
adjusted with a synthetic process to form the next
Observations are thus antitheses, expectations are theses and our conclusions syntheses. Popper however supposedly did not agree with this view because it is similar to a Hegelian view, which he opposed as totalitarian in for example After the Open Society. (Shearmur, Turner 2012).
During the 6th and 5th centuries BC something scientific happened in Greece whereby myths for the East were replaced with new facts. Medicine men and priests guarded the myths in their schools. The decisive change, which took place in Greece relates to "critical" approaches to our horizons. "Doubt and criticism" then became inherent to the schools.
Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes had this critical approach in their schools because the three philosophers each created a new tradition. Teachers supposedly motivated a critical approach at their students in contrast to the Pythagorean schools, which enshrined the teachings of the "the master".
"The task of science" is "theoretical (explanation)" and "practical (prediction" and testing). Explanations ("explicanda") and "premisses" (sic) ("explicans") are relevant. Modern science requires the testing of the premises to a larger extent then before.
Explanations are "always" "deductions" from premises in a sylogistic sense. Popper gives an example and demonstrates that explicans (premises) must consist of "universal laws" and "initial conditions". All rats die if they eat rat poison (universal law); this rat ate rat poison (initial individual condition); this dead rat died from eating rat poison (explanation).
Popper asks if all explanations of the above structure are "satisfactory". "Cause" and "effect" are dependent on universal laws, something, which Hume did not identify.
Theories have a "predictive" purpose and a "technical" application. "The falsification of the prediction shows that the explicans is false, yet the reverse of this does not hold: it is incorrect and grossly misleading to think that we can interpret the 'verification' of the prediction as 'verifying' the explicans or even part of it. For a true prediction may easily have been validly deduced from an explicans that is false. ..."
10 Februarie 2014
"There is no road, royal or otherwise, which leads of necessity from a 'given' set of specific facts to any universal law."
This is maybe the crux of Popper's belief. Maybe he then did not realize that honesties are necessities for creativities and survival. I presume his mistake was because of lacking in metaphysical philosophy or my honesties hypothesis is not actually a hypothesis because it is logical and therefore true. "Honesties are the best policies."
It may be genuinely true that empirical theories cannot be shown to be true and can only be shown to be false, but is it not also a metaphysical postulate, which cannot be shown to be true, then, according to Popper's argument that metaphysical postulates are vices? Is Popper's theory a false metaphysical theory?
Evaluate the following explicandum. 'Any normal human, who pushes a normal Ping-Pong ball, into normal conditions, will cause movement of the ball in the direction pushed.' Opposing views will say the thesis is not universal, but i doubt that. I am sure this postulate cannot be falsified. Popper is wrong. It is clear enough to see and therefore there is probably something metaphysical behind Popper's thesis, for example Caiaphas syndromes against 'truths' or a primary wish to be in the 'middle', drawing attention.
Popper's theory is
partly true because it refers fruitfully to psychological,
political and sociological theories, for examples, which
have not constant 'horizons'. Maybe the problem of Caiaphas
syndromes influenced the lack of fruitful replies to
Popper's thesis, because any refutation of Popper's theory
requires a stand for truths, which cause devils' actions.
It can be seen that Popper opposed Wittgenstein's theory that observations have truths values.
In answer to the notes by Popper it seems reasonable to write that proving falseness is a fact but proving that everything can be proven false is not a fact. Proving that nothing is true is the same as proving that everything is false therefore proving that nothing is true is false.
Popper regarded empirical induction as psychological because he argued it relates to "custom or habit" of believing in laws.
Whilst reading Popper, i thought that acceptance or non-acceptance of his theory is a psychological or metaphysical matter. If ones accept truths, then Popper's theory will be rejected and vice versa.
Whilst reading Popper, i thought that our arguments about science, be that scepticism or the opposite, depend on our psychological make up. Whether psychological make up is genetic or taught during early age is the next question. 'Make up' can however be divided between honesties and deceits as methods of survival.
Popper's thesis distinguishes primarily between 'dogmatic childish primitive individuals' and 'critical individuals', who date back to Thales, who was willing to oppose dogmatic views.
"The critical attitude may be described as the conscious attempt to make our theories, our conjectures, suffer in our stead in the struggle for survival of the fittest. It gives us a chance to survive the elimination of an inadequate hypothesis--when a more dogmatic attitude would eliminate it by eliminating us. (There is a touching story of an Indian community which disappeared because of its belief in the holiness of life, including that of tigers.) We thus obtain the fittest theory within our reach by the elimination of those which are less fit. (By 'fitness' I do not mean merely 'usefulness' but truth; see chapters 3 and 10, below.) I do not think that this procedure is irrational or in need of any further rational justification."
Repetitive observations, which make it possible to predict inductively, is not necessarily 'true' because we have not proof that the same natural laws will always apply.
Whilst reading Popper, i thought the inability of some philosophers, for example Popper, to acknowledge truths about inductions, could be a result of not realizing that they will die if enough force is used on them. Maybe they were not ever in danger or never opposed at a required level to make them realize their own weaknesses.
Whilst reading Popper, i thought that maybe the criteria 'truth' in his thesis relates to different conditions. The sun, which stood still in the time of Joshua related to war and therefore it is more likely that the laws of nature get broken during war times. Popper is therefore not accurate in transposing scepticism about natural laws to normal conditions. Maybe he should rather have transposed normal conditions to war conditions to reach a truer theory.
The conditions of normal and abnormal circumstances and expectations during the conditions is also an important part of Kuhn's critique, which follows.
Popper put much emphasis on probabilities.
11 February 2014
12 Februarie 2014 (2de lees)
"for I am not so sanguine as Sir Karl about the utility of confrontations."
Popper and Kuhn 'are' united in their opposition to "classical theses" of "classical positivism". "we are correspondingly sceptical of efforts to produce any neutral observation language". They insist that scientists may use theories to "explain" "phenomena" which use "real objects, whatever the latter phrase ["real objects"] may mean."
Some readers regard Kuhn's book to incorporate "parallelism", probably the philosophically informed readers.
"Parallelism" means humans are made up of mind and body, which acts in concordance but the parts influence not the other part. Leibniz and Spinoza philosophized that. (Mautner, 2005)
Maybe Kuhn meant a difference between him and Popper is that Popper believes not parallelism.
Kuhn's parents were non-practicing Jews from Ohio.
Popper said what he sees as a duck could be seen as a rabbit.