--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "J. Almeida" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >True. They are trying to falsify the dogma that life >is found ONLY on Earth. That is the significance of >their effort. > >Imagine an application for funds that reads something >like this: > >This project will confirm that life is found only on >earth. We propose to do this by travelling widely on >earth and recording the occurence of living creatures. >This will confirm that life is found only on earth. > ..................... > >Falsification leads to scientific discovery. >
Joel, the above example is at least as much a caricature of a scientific funding application, as Popper's falsification folly is a caricature of the scientific discovery process iself. But apart from that, this example gives us a great opportunity to see how trivial and flawed this Popperian concept is. Jumping from water on Mars to life on earth as you have tried to do, let us stipulate that those who are looking for water on Mars are indeed trying to falsify the rather tangential and awkwardly phrased hypothesis that there is life only on earth. But this hypothesis is conceptually the converse of the hypothesis that there is life elsewhere. A Popperian scientist trying to falsify the hypothesis that there is life elsewhere would go from planet to planet looking for evidence that there is no life there. No matter how many planets he might manage to comb through without finding life on them, he would never be able to falsify the said hypothesis, because in practical terms, given the possibility of an infinite universe or at least the enormity of it, there would always be an unexplored planet where there might be life. On the other hand, an anti-Popperian scientist looking for confirmatory evidence for the same hypothesis that there is life elsewhere, by merely finding one confirming instance of such life in the form of a live, dead or fossilized specimen on some planet other than earth, would establish, once and for all that there is life elsewhere. Here is a clear-cut case wherein a single confirmatory observation establishes a scientific fact, while falsification leads one into eternal ignorance. So much for falsification leading to discovery. The asymmetric appearance of falsification as opposed to confirmation rests entirely on how you phrase the target hypothesis. I am sorry, it is hard for me to take seriously any concept that is so precariously balanced on the exact choice of words that a mere rearrangement of these words brings it crashing to the ground. I would much rather invest my limited mental capacity in more mundane but substantive concepts. Cheers, Santosh P.S. I think I have exhausted my arguments on this subject. So please forgive me if I don't reply to any of your future posts on this thread. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-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 !!
