On 15 Apr 2013, at 19:54, meekerdb wrote:

On 4/15/2013 2:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 14 Apr 2013, at 21:45, meekerdb wrote:

On 4/14/2013 6:37 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 12:52 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 4/13/2013 2:40 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
...
What knowledge do you think has come from philosophy?
You are aware that by asking this question you are already doing philosophy?

Some of my favorites: the scientific method, logic, the
systematisation of fallacies, Descarte's cogito, theories about
knowledge itself (Epistemology). The entire intellectual foundation of western civilisation may make it to the list too, but it's a bit hard
to enumerate all the ideas...

Brent
"The philosophy of science is just about as useful to scientists
as ornithology is to birds."
     --- Steven Weinberg
Funny as it might be to treat scientists as a biological class of
organisms, this is a bit silly. Popper's principle of falsifiability
seems rather useful to me. Occam's razor is not that bad either.

Useful summaries of practice and explication of science, but are they *knowledge*?

There is no knowledge as such in science.

That's contrary to all usage. It means I don't know the Earth is round and I don't know there's a refrigerator in my kitchen. I understand these are theories or models and that they are defeasible.

That's the point. That is important when we talk on science in science. The usage is good for sending man on the moon, but in epistemological research, we must be more cautious with the terming.



But to say there is no knowledge because knowledge must be certain seems perverse.

Knowledge must be true, not certain. Truth is anything but certain, in most case. The only exception might be consciousness.




And it doesn't comport with your own formula that "knowledge = true belief". My belief that there's a refrigerator in my kitchen can be true without being certain.

Exactly.



If I go now and look in the kitchen and see a refrigerator then my belief is true and constitutes knowledge.

You might be dreaming. You only get a confirmation of your belief/ theory.





But this seems very different from say, Popper's principle of falsifiability. Is it a definition? A normative rule about how we use the word "science"? Or is it advice about how to weigh theories when deciding which one to work on? Is Popper's principle falsifiable?

Yes. Actually it has been falsified:

CASE J. & NGO-MANGUELLE S., 1979, Refinements of inductive inference by Popperian machines. Tech. Rep., Dept. of Computer Science, State Univ. of New- York, Buffalo.




Only falsifiable beliefs.

Are you asserting that there are no true beliefs in science?

All true and communicable beliefs are falsifiable. Falsifiable does not lean falsified. Consciousness is plausibly not falsifiable, but it is not communicable either.

Public knowledge is never certain.

Bruno





Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to