Popperian falsification.

Skeptics of the anthropogenic thesis of climate change should read up and ponder it.

OK so you sent me scurrying for my dictionary - Anthropogenic, I got it.

I guess that the answer (to Bart’s question) is pretty much as Popper says, “It will take time before we have our answer” (as to whether climate change is being caused by us or by nature, or both), and as Popper suggests the arguments will be truth tested along the way.

To Larry and Margie I offer that Popper’s Point (PP) is that the growth of (scientific)knowledge occurs over time (hard to argue with that). He refers to “truth” as a (testing) component, (which is also hard to argue with).  He does not say that truth is the goal or the objective, he merely acknowledges that it (the truth) is ever present (a component), nothing wrong with that either.

Along the way he makes his most useful observation, which is that scientific knowledge is (therefore) evolutionary. 

Sorry for all of the parenstheses !

Apparently I am too stupid to understand Popperian philosophy. Good, because IMHO of this type of reasoning, it is mostly nonsense. One ends up staring at their navel wondering why they have back pain.

Well, I read it..twice…and pondered it…and came to the conclusion that it does nothing to change the reality that science and professionalism are tainted with (and intimidated by) political ideology.

Incestuous amplification applies to science too.

“He explorers all aspects of life, disecting what makes it tick and…“

As I said…(he—a philosopher) is merely a spectator. Talk to some of these hobos in Monroe Park, one time. Some of them can tell YOU everything about life—how the worlds ticks—but they cannot hold a job long enough to make an impact on the world.

Apples and oranges, Larry. A scientist and a philosopher deal in two very different things. While a scientist might very well conceive of a unique theory and apply it sucessfully, a philosopher deals in far more than just science. He explorers all aspects of life, disecting what makes it tick and sometimes hitting on a new truth in the process. Both are impressive when they yell, “Eureka!“

“I’m a little more impressed than you by people who deal in ideas, but the people who manage to implement them are more useful, I guess.“

Margie, you are (wrongly) separating people into two mutually exclusive categories: (1.) The “smart” people who talk about ideas and (2.) dimwits who merely carry them out. Don’t feel bad…this is a common misconception.

A true scientist sees millions of ideas dancing through their head each day, but instead of just TALKING about the ideas, they also put them right into action. A philosospher, on the other hand, just talks about them—i.e., thinks out-loud and that’s it.

So by the logic you use, the philosopher is “smart” because he chirps words. Remember Margie, a Parakeet does the same thing.

Sure they do, Larry. They keep us humble. Anyone who knows what that many big words means without looking them up is way smarter than me. I’m a little more impressed than you by people who deal in ideas, but the people who manage to implement them are more useful, I guess.

That’s ok Margie—I never did consider philosophers to be scientists anyhow. In other words: Philosophers are a joke, in my opinion. They think out-loud but never actually DO anything.

Hmmm—Went over my head! But it seems like he is saying, as regards global warming, that unless you can give a verifiable instance in which the therory is not true, then it is a viable therory.That seemed like an awful lot of words to say, “prove it ain’t so”. What am I missing here? Oh,never mind.

From the above linked entry on Popper: “As early as 1934 Popper wrote of the search for truth as “one of the strongest motives for scientific discovery.“

No no nooooo…. the best motivation for continuing science is the quest for KNOWLEDGE. We can do things— move mountains — with knowledge; by contrast “truth” implies an absolute that we can’t do a damn thing about.

(Larry blows on trigger finger).

See??? I proved this Popper guy wrong with only 60-some keystrokes.

Post Your Comments: