On 15 Mar 2014, at 13:22, [email protected] wrote:
On Saturday, March 15, 2014 7:39:21 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Mar 2014, at 21:40, [email protected] wrote:
I've asked questions about method. You have not answered them. You
say you have been trying to understand me. I believe you have been
trying. But what you haven't been doing, is trying to understand me
at all. Evidence? Well, is there a single instance in all our
discussion where you say "ok, so is this what you mean? I can see
what you are thinking. OK, I don't agree, but let's work this
through on your terms, and I believe we can do that , because I
believe the science is robust. Let's do that, and through doing
that, let us take that slightly scenic view together, off the
beaten track; walk with me and I'll escort you back to where I am
already. Because there are many paths, but only one landscape."
Or words to that effect.
And I get it, that you don't understand what I am thinking, and
there's likely a consensus around that too, that I'm not being
coherent.
Well, thanks for answering for me. I might indeed have some
difficulty seeing your point here. Usually I prefer to separate
philosophical analysis from the technical points. That is why I
separate also completely the question of the truth of comp and its
consequences from the question as to know if comp does lead to such
consequences.
And I'm accommodating that and answering that, above. How could you
get what I'm asking while cloaked in the Popperian view as true.
I don't feel so much cloaked in the Popperian view. It has been been
refuted by John Case, notably (showing that Popper was doing science
in his own term, paradoxically).ime
Bruno - how do you mean this?
In the paradoxical way, as showing that popper has a point, but that
it should not be taken too much seriously. "0+x = x" is hardly
refutable, yet a *very interesting and fundamental* "scientific" idea.
You have consistently defined science in popper terms?
It is mine, or Socrates one. Popper insists rightly on this, but you
can see this as common sense. This has not prevented Popper to take
some physicalism for granted, though, and Popper is far from being the
most Popperian scientist. But then I have rarely seen a philosopher
following his own philosophy.
You've defined theory in conjectural terms.
Theory, or just belief. the theory that you have parents is a theory.
You need to assume it without proof. the same for the existence of sun
and moon.
You've defined the terms for evaluation and criteria for acceptance
- of a theory - multidimensionally in popper terms in line with
dimensions of popperian philosophy itself. You've rejected or said
you don't understand, wherever and whenever I have spoken as if in
reference to something other than popper. You've claimed something
is science because testable, and testable as falsifiable, and all of
this nothing added or subtracted from boiler plate popperianism.
If something is testable, it is science. But if something is not
testable, it is not necessarily bad science.
You've acknowledged popperianism as the best explanation in various
ways, in various contexts, in various places.
Just an interesting and important feature of science, but not as a
definitive criterion. I don't think this exist.
Most of my lines of argument that you typically return a blank on
involve a criticism of assumptions you are building in, that assume
popper as true?
Partially true. I can use it when I talk to Popperian, but I am not
that much Popperian.
I don't remember you acknowledging a single point as even
understood. I don't remember you changing a major inbuilt assumption
of popper, some of which I've pointed at agaain and again, some of
which you were explicitly putting at the centre of a theory. You
didn't complain at the popper linkage....on the contrary the
indicate fun has been you acknowledged and applied popper faithfully
and regarded doing so as a virtue.
OK.
Now you say you regard popper as refuted.
Only if you take him literally, which I do not. I just do science, not
philosophy of science.
Did I just refute popper in your view?
Why? No. I don't see it. John Case did it, at least in theory:
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.
You might find help in studying also:
CASE J. & SMITH C., 1983, Comparison of Identification Criteria for
Machine Inductive
Inference. In Theoretical Computer Science 25,.pp 193-220.
I don't think that's only a refutation of popper. Nor is it the only
refutation of popper. I think - or I theorized as part of the effort
- that I would seek to provide something that'd be my best shot at
something that you would get. For being also, something that you'd
pretty immediately see was true in lots of ways that directly
connected to things your reasoning, or the standard reasoning
behind, also say to be true.
A reasoning cannot be true, only valid. propositions, like axioms and
theorems can be said to be true, or false. usually we cannot know that
for sure, but we can believe them, and they can be true.
I thought I was giving something there that can sit beneath things,
at least potentially. Beneath logic. Arithmetic. Something also that
can reinforce, and prove things, and generate empirical predictions
from things, not previously possible so directly to do.
But it is too high level and unclear for me. I am a simple minded
mathematician. I understand 9+1=10, and not much more.
Very ambitious hopefulness. I know. I have to be willing to look a
fool, for being wrong. Or even made a fool for being right.
You are just unclear to me. I still don't know if you got the
technical point, from which we might do some philosophy. But we
shopuld not do philosophy when doing science at the same time, as this
leads to confusion of genres.
But in a way it is predictive. Contingent on you....being in the
role of objective reality. What you say is true will be true. To the
extent I'm right that's going to be a reversal moment for you, a
healing moment....I hope.
Apologies if I just lost you Bruno
But I don't even see what you missed.
I certainly don't believe anything in the sense of believing it
true. I prefer to just make clear the assumptions, and reason from
there, until I found a contradiction.e
You know the popperian criteria of what is true, accommodates this
fully.
Popper has a criterion for truth?
If that is true, then Popper missed what science is all about.
I don't think there are any truth criterion in science.
One of the thing I want to illustrate is that we can tackle
"philosophical" or "theological" questions with the same rigor than
in math or physics, once we choose the hypothesis making that
possible. Computationalism is such an hypothesis. It is a lamp and I
search the key under that lamps, because it is too much dark
elsewhere.
There are implications of meaning that in a certain range of
ways....that would have translated to implications for the popperian
view that is evident throughout. At least to appreciate a direct
argument based around an assumption being unsafe.
What do you mean by an assumption being unsafe?
Bruno
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
