Re: Implications of Recent Developments in Network Science...really?

On 13 Feb 2013, at 16:48, JAG <jaguarnight2012-/[email protected]> wrote:

> --- In [email protected], Alan Forrester  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 11 Feb 2013, at 11:41, JAG  wrote:
>> 
>>> --- In [email protected], "hibbsa"  wrote:
>>>> Here's the extra implication to the domain of 'philosphy of science'  as
>>>> I see it.
>>> 
>>> Greetings to all.....
>>> 
>>> not exactyly a respond to the topic discussed here but here is another real-LEGIT implication to the domain of philosophy of science (that is, according to Hume's following idea):
>>> 
>>> "How is 'experimental reasoning' about causes and effects itself
>>> justified? In terms of deduction? that is impossible since the
>>> conclusion of inductive arguments are not deductively derivable from
>>> their premises. In terms of experimental reasoning? that is arguing
>>> in circle."
>>> -Hume
>> 
>> It isn't justified. Justification is unnecessary and impossible. See "The Beginning of Infinity" by David Deutsch and "Realism and the Aim of Science" by Karl Popper.
> 
> Alan,
> 
> sorry but i have to disagree. It's not impossible; but yes, kinda difficult. That's why if we are really good in what we do 'here' we'll find a way to justify IT. 

No. It's impossible. Knowledge can't be proven to be true since any argument that allegedly proves this has to start with premises and rules of inference that might be wrong. In addition, any alleged foundation for knowledge would be unexplained and arbitrary, so saying that an idea is a foundation is grossly irrational.

> Now, about 'legimization' and "justificatiohn":
> if we can't justify a few things, then at bets, we are fooling ourselves or we are looking for LEGIT excuses to do so and get away with it! ;)

No. If you kid yourself that your ideas can be guaranteed true or probably true, rather than admitting that any idea you hold could be wrong, then you are fooling yourself and will spend at least some of your time engaged in an empty ritual of "justification" rather than looking for better ideas.

> I am kinda surpised to hear that a few things don't justification
> 
> I am not here to argue about 'dogmas' but to find solutions to empirical methods/problems and conceptual issues in philosophy of science.
> 
> P.S. yes, i have read Popper, great stuff and i loved it, but he is kinda outdated and while briilint and 'correct' in many things, he is still limited to his own experiences/ability to see the whole and re-unite science and philosophy. 

You have not criticised Popper's ideas, nor have you even stated them. However, since you are interested in arguing about conceptual problems in the philosophy of science I have a question for you. What is your criticism of Popper's concept that all knowledge is created by conjecture and criticism and is totally unjustified and unjustifiable?

Alan