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

--- In [email protected], Alan Forrester  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > 
> 
> 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
>

Hi Alan, 

your post below PROVES exactly my point! and below is the respond to your great question, but let's clear the air about a few starting points:

1) Philosophy of Science is/means exactly that: PHILOSOPHY ;)

 "Philosophy aims at the logical clarification of thoughts. Philosophy is not a body of doctrine but an activity. A philosophical work consists essentially of elucidations. Philosophy does not result in 'philosophical propositions', but rather in the clarification of
propositions. Without philosophy thoughts are, as it were, cloudy and indistinct: its task is to make them clear and give them sharp boundaries." -Ludwig Wittgenstein 


2)Justification IN NOT impossible, rather and simply, it's  CONDITIONAL! ;)

 "There are two modes of acquiring knowledge, namely by reasoning and experience.Reasoning draws a conclusion and makes us grant the conclusion, but does not make the conclusion certain, nor does it remove doubt so that the mind may rest on the intuition of truth, unless the mind discovers it by the path of experience." 
-Roger Bacon


vivid example for you: an x-ray exists ONLY as long we have an X-ray MACHINE, (and then the material to make it, and then the 'terms/means' to read it etc)!
thus, we can say that an x-ray DOES NOT exist, but only in the absence of the X-ray machine, and that's where we agree, i think, but i argue, that until we invent and posses an 'x-ray' machine (since we have the ability/capacity/vision)  we can NOT really say that is not possible AT ALL -to have an x-ray; here x-ray=justification, that's what you are saying and that's exactly where i am looking for better ideas -than consuming/fooling myself, as you put it,

As of Popper's concept "that all knowledge is created by conjecture and criticism and is totally unjustified and unjustifiable", i would argue that since conjecture and criticism are the ONLY given means of investigations, at the same time they are ALSO the means for justification (conditionally and having meaning based on those conditions). It's that SIMPLE! i didn't state anything bc simply, i answered to your suggestion to read his work. if you want i will be more precice later!

you are right tho about "The basic theme here is a criticism of infallibilism. It criticizes guarantees and failure to admit one's ideas could be wrong." 

that's exactly my point 'about things being able to be justified!' ;)

can you see the difference and similarity @ the same time? why not?

ah...semantical or conceptual problem here? hmmmm!
same goes for the 'refuting' part; it's based on the same principle it serves! ;)