Dear Santosh, You write: "Joel has repeatedly stated in this forum that good Science proceeds by refutation rather than by induction. This statement is as false as many of his other statements."
You are right, many of my statements are false: probably because I am merely human. I must say, in fairness, that your statements are NOT invariably false. If I take a little light-hearted tone in the following text it is not because I lack the deepest respect for your talents. It�s just that I don�t want everyone falling asleep or bored to tears. Please accept my apologies in advance, should I inadvertently appear disrespectful. Those who have a little time might want to continue reading. (This post is not related to the elections in Goa). You appear to rely on Gardner�s opinions of Nagel�s opinions of Popper. Why not read Popper for yourself and decide? Many Nobel Prize winners claim that Popper transformed their approach to science. I think you would increase your own chances of winning a Nobel Prize by reading Popper. You allege Popper was eccentric. Let�s pretend he had three nostrils and liked to dance the polka while listening to heavy metal music: how does that affect the validity of his ideas? Gardner says that Popper�s ideas are held by a small and noisy minority. Let�s pretend that is true. So what? At one time most people thought the earth was a flat disc. Gardner will �get it� eventually, give him time. He does write for the Skeptical Inquirer, which (on the basis of its superficial information and shoddy logic here) I hope is skeptical chiefly about its own views. However, Gardner is not beyond hope: he is quoted as saying in an interview that he believes in God in order to escape deep despair. What a sensible man. That opens his mind to the belief that (for most people) enriches human life with meaning: God is Love and those who dwell in Love dwell in God, and God in them. Let�s move on to the subject matter of induction, the habit of generalizing from experience and observation. All of us probably know of the inductionist turkey. It was fed on Monday. It was fed on Tuesday. It was fed on Wednesday, and so on. It was not a stupid turkey. It confidently expected to be fed on Christmas day. It had �no evidence to suggest� that it would be roasted and served up on Christmas day. Induction is inherently unreliable. Don�t be an inductionist turkey. Seek reality. Try joining Einstein, Chandrasekhar, McFarlane Burnet, Lederberg and many other Nobel prize winners. Conjecture beyond the accumulated experience and information and seek evidence which could potentially falsify your own conjectures. That is the reliable route to scientific advances: conjecture and attempted refutation. There is a problem with �raw observation�. What the mind does not conjecture about, the eye might well not see. For example, those who have met many stupid and ignorant dark-skinned people sometimes use induction. They generalize to say, dogmatically: ALL dark-skinned people are stupid and ignorant. Their belief in this dogma is so strong that they seek only confirmatory evidence, and find it in abundance. They simply do not see, much less seek, contrary evidence. �Induction and confirmation� are inherently unreliable, they tend to close the mind to reality, and tend to produce prejudices and dogmas: even totalitarianism (read Popper for more on that). There is a logical asymmetry between confirmation and falsification. How many swans are required to �confirm� the dogma: �ALL swans are white�? One swan? One thousand? One billion? Now consider falsification. How many black swans are required to refute the dogma: �ALL swans are white�? One black swan. Finding just one black swan is enough to refute the dogma that ALL swans are white. All inductionist �scientific� dogmas are all no more than conjectures, ripe for refutation. Despite this, the pages of scientific journals are cluttered with �me-too� articles, trying to confirm rather than falsify important conjectures, seldom offering bold new conjectures. �There is no scientific evidence to suggest x� is another giveaway mark of the dogmatic inductionist/confirmationist. Consider the thalidomide story. The drug thalidomide was permitted for human use in Europe at a time when there was little evidence suggesting serious adverse effects. It was prescribed for morning sickness in pregnant women. A rational scientist might have been content with stating the estimated incidence rate of adverse effects based on the evidence to date (upper limit of statistical confidence interval). Instead, thalidomide was permitted for use in Europe as being safe, generalizing from �no scientific evidence of adverse effects�. Disaster lurked around the corner. Women treated with thalidomide gave birth to babies with severely deformed limbs. It is dangerous to generalize from necessarily limited observations. (Fortunately, the US Food and Drug Administration refuses to generalize from experience, and keeps a file indefinitely open on adverse effects of every substance or device permitted for human use. It constantly seeks evidence that could falsify the hypothesis of drug/device safety.) In closing I would say, be an inductionist turkey if you like. But it�s not my fault if they roast you and eat you. I�d much rather you concentrated on winning the Nobel Prize. Why not join the many rational scientists who have abandoned their faith in induction, and adopted falsification: the process of conjecture and refutation? I recommend that you be a bit more skeptical about the views of the Skeptical Inquirer; and open your mind further by reading some Popper. Once again, let me emphasize that I take the liberty of writing like this only because I respect your talents. I am rather fond of fellow Goans and particularly Goan scientists. Regards, Joel Almeida __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-W-E-B---S-I-T-E-=-=-= To Subscribe/Unsubscribe from GoaNet | http://www.goacom.com/goanet =================================================================== For (un)subscribing or for help, Contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dont want so many e=mails? Join GoaNet-Digest instead ! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Help support non-commercial projects in Goa by advertizing!! * * * * Your ad here !!
