On 02 Jun 2014, at 17:58, [email protected] wrote:
so I offered a test event tailored to a specific and probably fairly
central to most others, charge relating to my positioning with Bruno
in not responding to all or most counter arguments and objections or
criticisms of something I have actually or effectively done.
I constructed a basic test event, obviously it had to be tied to a
very specific argument, involving a specific charge or suspicion, in
a situation featuring possible two of us. It isn't a problem to
construct a falsifiable prediction that is in keeping with the
criteria of step one of the definition.
So he chooses one of the Bruno counter points I did not answer, and
goes for the knock down hardest one he thinks I'll find. And I will
say why that point did not make a case to answer. And why I have dug
my heels and stopped showing him the courtesy of answering anyway.
This is because I don't he has even now read my definition
seriously, because his own objections are clearly illegitimate or
misconceived, and his own offers of events of testing or whatever
clearly do not meet the critieria of definition.
In fact his positions have not changed at all. I cannot reconcile
this with a serious reading. And there's actually no point in
continuing unless and until Bruno does make the decision to read my
definition, which he requested and I supplied for. And absorb it,
and be able to distinguish where any position he has does or does
meet a criteria.
He doesn't have to agree with any of it. But he had to know where
the argument is, if he's serious.
Because one way that his theory NOW ACTUALLY IS, falsifiable is in
terms of the status he claimed for it, of falsifiability. The reason
that isn't actually falsifiability is because every theory at a
falsifiable status has spent a long time in a pre-falsifiable stage.
And may well still be that phase, because to falsifiable the process
itself has to not only start but finish, and there are a lot of
constraints what a delay has to meet in criteria to be legitimate.
Most delays quickly correspond to falsification events, but of the
status only. Which never falsifies the theory and can never. Because
IT'S DECOUPLED and never knows much what the fuck the theory is !!
Anyway, here was example,.
"So for example, Bruno has argued that I failed address an he has
said saw what he regards as a successful test., He then infers from
my silence that I have effectively rejected it, and he concludes I
must therefore be in contradiction with myself because I said I
didn't have the skills to be doing things like that. "
So everything connects and is logical in what he says and his
conclusion. But once again he's still on the inside of his theory,
and still being driven along by the influence of the same
misconception that the dichotomy which seems to regard the
interaction between the falsification structure as an end to
process - and in this setting the interaction is via me obviously,
in that the action I took in not responding amounts to a rejection
of some element in his theory. Which on its own its perfectly
correct. not responding is a response.
But the same problematic misconception remains in his thinking here,
which best illustrated here, amounts to believing decoupling between
anything to do with the process of falsification, and anything to do
with anything in his theory theory is a dichotomy of correct
interaction with the interior of his theory, in this case that if I
am going to effectively reject something by not addressing it, I am
immediately contradicting myh own position thatI do not have skills
to be making judgement calls about elements of his theory. So it's
clearly perfectly sound reasoning he's got in play there.
But falsification doesn't care what is reasoned correct or not,
within a theory. It doesn't care and will never care. Because it can
never care about one particular theory, when it is process that runs
across the entirety of science through the entirety of the history
of science. How can anything like that have any dependence on a
particular logical reasoning that on its own terms demands a reason
why it can't be heard?
It's all good though, because the logical that is correct can be
clearly stated as the consequence of the definition and my response
to Bruno, which proxies for the interaction of the falsification
structure to the theory. Bruno is right in act that silence is not
an adequate response to the issues that he raising. Because the part
of the falsification, if it is to deaf to all theories is also to
deliver explicit and simple criteria to that theory. This is only
connection possible. It is one way to the interface, the outer
surface of the theory, from the structure to the theory. That must
be a very simple request for, initially a condition that meets the
criteria of the first step of falsification. Now I have asked Bruno
for this a few times, and I have explained each time why this is all
I ever need to know, which involves nothing about his theory, and
will never ever require me to make any kind of judgement about any
part of his theory.
l
What he remembers about the judgement that his logic rightly says
amounts to a rejection by me of something for not addressing it, is
wrong because that wasn't the event that addesses that thing I
didn't address. The silence was because he hadn't in my view made
any effort to do the things that if he did them, would likely see
him able to answer his own question, but definitely I would gladly
answer anything if I saw even a sign of any effort his side. Because
I have made an effort and supplied him a definition by his request.
Which now he won't read and internalize.
OK, so the earlier event that settles everything, is any one of
where I explain that I do not need to understand anything about his
theory. It is not for me to decide the merits of any test he
proposes. Maybe if goes somewhere else there'll be an abstract
structure that someone thinks is the true falsificatioin structure
that wants to get down and dirty with the innards of his theory. Go
there, and be loved! But - remembering that I'm proxying here for
the process - By design I cannot respond to anything that does not
meet the criteria of the first stage. And I have explained and asked
for this a few times. And he has, probably because he doesn't read
it, never even tried to align anything he says with the criteria. So
dig my heels in. He says I've judged some dubre on the inside of his
theory because I don't answer. No! I don't answer because the matter
is already settled my end and I have spelled out for you that, if
you have a prediction that you can formulate purely in terms of the
incumbent knowledge that another team somewhere else that knows
nothing about you or your theory, has picked and is active in the
end to end stage two process, which can for any amount of time but
on strict criteria at every stage. If you your body of work meets
these conditions your body of work is now at the falsification status.
test
That is literally the falsificatioin status. It's not an argument
that someone makes from within their theory or from anywhere about
some test or some tesbility potential or something that happened in
the past that someone did or something that will in the future. It's
a real objective physical status of a body of NOW, defined wholly in
terms of the end to end structure of stages and conditoons of the
falsiciation process. If a theory is at step one it is falsifiable.
Because indeed it is..it's in the process and the process now runs
by itself independently, and the theory remains falsifiable for as
long as the process remains in a legitimate state. If the process
falls into a state that is not legitimate, like it emerges when that
team looks more closely that they have no clue how your test can be
constructed or what you actually mean. Then your theory has just had
its falsifiability status revoked. The whole process must complete
and must be progressing or in a waiting position that is tightly
constrained in terms of what is legitimate and what isn't. A test
that cannot be in a process of becoming more and more distinct
independently of the theory and theorist is not a viable test.
So that's an example of how any objection Bruno is raising isn't
amounting a case to answer at present.
There's lot of ways you or anyone can go with this. You can
challenge the definition. And I willing accept any challenge and
make things much stricter on me and easier on you. Everything I have
defined so far - although it;'s really a small sort bulltet point of
a few things I think core to this matter. It's bigger thing.
So look, anything I've defined. If you can give a non-trivial
variant that doesn't lead to a series of consequences that snowball
eventually to the loss of the viability of the process as a whole,
to deliver what it has to consistently deliver. Then we'll call that
a falsificaitoin of my definition. Is that fair?
But don't bother, please. Don't waste my time any more than yours.
By not reading and really spending time absorbing what that
definition is, first. And let's have something involving a
discussion around it for some period as well. That way the prospects
of finding a legitimate and real variant in some way, can actually
be at its maximum potential. That way I get to be in a process of
discovery as well.
I think that I did not criticize your notion of "falsification". It
just that comp + classical definition of knowledge (and of probability
on the sigma_1 sentences respecting the UDA reasoning) lead to a
theory which is falsifiable, even in your own term.
You might sum up your definition of falsification if you disagree with
some explanation why it would not apply to either QL or the comp-QL.
You send many posts including self-replies, which makes hard to find
your definition. None of your remark seems enough specific so that I
could have a clear opinion on them. Simply: I don't got clue of what
is the problem you are taking about.
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.
