Re: Solidity is degree of justifica (was: Mirror neurons at autopsy)

--- In [email protected], David Deutsch <david.deutsch@...> wrote:
>
> In [email protected], Elliot Temple <curi@> wrote:
> 
> > On Dec 18, 2012, at 2:53 PM, David Deutsch <david.deutsch@> wrote:
> > 
> >> (Well, I say we know this -- but that explanation is not nearly as solid as the ones above.
> > 
> > This is justificationism.
> 
> I don't think it's a good idea to extend the meaning of the term 'justificationism' in this way, to include claims that more is known about one subject than another. (A.k.a. that we have better explanations of one issue than another, a.k.a. that the best theories about one issue are harder to vary than those in another, a.k.a. more solid than those in another -- the metaphor being that the shape of a solid is harder to vary than that of a liquid.)
> 
> The reason it isn't a good idea is that it would classify a whole class of true statements under the same heading as an important (and unrelated) philosophical error, the one that is currently called 'justificationism', namely that knowledge is that which can be justified as true, or likely to be true, etc.
> 
> In the quoted post, the two issues about which I made that comparison were (1) whether there must be an inborn translation system in animals capable of copying but not of creativity; and (2) whether the 'mirror neurons' that have been discovered are part of that system. I was saying that I think the best explanations currently known of the respective issues imply that both answers are yes, but that the explanations of the former issue are better than those of the latter.
> 
> -- David Deutsch
>

I agree you aren't being justificationalist. But.....the issue I am seeing is that by the same coin you use 'solidity' you can use 'weight'....'valid'....'more likely'....'more probable'. All of which can be tied directly to the explanation of the 'former' being harder to vary. 

So....what's the score? I mean, rigourous dudes in Science have used this popper-banned vocabularly all along also to the end of pointing to the hardest to vary theory. 

So....I'm wondering...is the real explanation of what is going on, that during a few years 'time out' from the hard Scientific coal-face, you used popper and your own philosophical principles to construct a set of rules-of-play with accompanying vocabularly. But having now returned to the coal face, what you are discovering is that the vocabularly and rules are not fit for purpose. Do not support the process of doing hard science on the shop floor. 

If so....that's actually a pretty fabulous situation to be in. You probably didn't even expect to get it right first shot. The vocabularly/rules need to support and communicate the research process with all its complexities and fine judgements, as it unfolds  on the shop floor.