Re: Constructor theory paper by David

On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 8:01 AM, a b <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Alan <alan_forrester2-/[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.7439
>>
>
> Because I have diverged with the core philosophical ideas, on a
> personal level I was somewhat disappointed to see that constructor
> theory was ultimately going to be producing popperian principles of
> reality such as the requirement of being a 'good explanation' ...and
> no doubt all the other popper-interpreted methodological rules.
>
> However, with that said, I must acknowledge I am in a popper list, not
> neutral ground and so on, and hence need to explain why I am here if I
> think the philosophy is that wrong. The answer is I don't think it is
> wrong, I think it's good. I just think it has diverged from science. I
> think the relationship is about as near and distant as Western
> structures from Communist structures. And...these two forms of human
> goverrnance are much nearer than people say..in some ways. And much
> farther, in others. More precisely, they start off much nearer, but
> tend to diverge as you let them run.
>
> So I'm here because of the aspects between science and popper/deutsch
> that I think are much more similar than even popper/deutsch have seen.
> IMHO. Those aspects are necessarily early on, or high up in the
> abstraction hierarchy, or foundational in some sense that doesn't
> become foundationalism.
>
> The constructor theory is the same. A lot of the ideas look really
> good. But...they are probably at their best right now before they get
> developed. Certainly, the insight that if his theory is wrong,
> there'll need to be another that answers some of the problems that he
> does correctly identify. So again...it's an idea of strange value. Not
> right in the sense it is, but just as popperianism/deutschism can help
> us understand Science (but not in the way they think), this theory can
> help us understand what the next big theory is going to have to look
> like and resolve.
>
> Which means it's valuable even in the Popperian sense. Which is why I
> don't say it is wrong. Which is why I still follow it and think about
> it and try to understand why it can be so right, yet so wrong. I think
> I've answered the problem now after all this time. But it's been a lot
> of thinking, and I reckon I'm in the situation now that a lot of
> people find themselves in. Do I want to go to the trouble of trying to
> explain it?
>
> What are the prospects of people even wanting to hear it, even if I
> could say it perfectly. According to my insight, not much chance at
> all. People don't change their minds very often about the things that
> really matter to them. I haven 't seen any indication in these lists
> that the popper/deutsch philosophy makes people any different in this
> respect.

You have little understand of Popperism.

A Popperian is certain about a theory if and only if he has no
criticisms of that theory.

So, if you present me with a criticism of one of my unrefuted
theories, then I'm either going to:

(1) criticize your criticism, meaning that I still consider my theory
to be true,

or

(2) take note that your criticism rivals my theory, such that my
theory is no longer unrefuted, meaning that I now consider my theory
to be false.


You said, that everybody (including Popperians) "doesn't change their
minds about the things that really matter to them". What does that
mean? Look at my description above. Are you claiming that Popperians
don't respond to criticism in the way I described?


> Deutsch is right to push his beliefs and ideas as hard as he
> can.

That makes no sense. DD doesn't do that. He doesn't repeat himself.
What does "pushing ones beliefs" mean?


> We need people like that, with the energy and personal conviction
> and driveness who will push their insights and work as hard as they
> can....in the face of a hostile and disinterested world.

What do you think DD does any of that?

For a Popperian, conviction of an idea, or belief in an idea, means
that he has no unrefuted criticisms of that idea. Are you saying that
we should not do this? Are you saying we should use a different way of
determining which ideas are true and which are false?


>
> Only by having many people like that can science move  onward. It's
> hard work and can only come to fruition if we are open to some types
> of helpful crticisim and totally closed to other types that aren't
> helpful ......not helpful/unhelpful in the philosophcial sense, but in
> the sense of helping us develop and improve and ultimate realize and
> prove that our personal intutions are true. God bless 'im.

So you're saying that you gave DD some criticisms that he didn't
address because he found them unhelpful. Thats false. He criticized
them.

-- Rami Rustom
http://ramirustom.blogspot.com