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

On 14 Feb 2013, at 00:45, Alan Forrester wrote:

>
> On 13 Feb 2013, at 22:38, "JAG" jaguarnight2012-/[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > --- In [email protected], Alan Forrester wrote:
> >
>
> > 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
>
> No philosophy is about solving philosophical problems. Philosophy  
> does not aim solely at the logical clarification of thoughts, it's  
> aimed at solving philosophical problems. This may require new ideas,  
> not logical clarification of current ideas. Popper criticised  
> Wittgenstein in "Open Society and Its Enemies" and Chapter 2 of  
> "Conjectures and Refutations".
>
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >
>
> > 2)Justification IN NOT impossible, rather and simply, it's  
> CONDITIONAL! ;)
>
> Justification is not conditional. First, if you are taking the  
> condition for granted then the condition is just a conjecture and so  
> is any argument in which you use it. Second, the rules of inference  
> of the argument are also unjustified conjectures so your argument is  
> unjustified for that reason too.
>

But the point is may be that it can still be conditionally justified.  
Perhaps.
I agree with Popper and Deutsch on some key points, but I disagree  
with the wording and the vocabulary.

It is better to assume that knowledge is related to truth, by  
definition. And belief are the conjecture and theories, which are  
always falsifiable. So I can sum up Popper by saying that in science  
there is only beliefs. But knowledge still exist, in the non  
constructive way, because some beliefs, despite falsifiable, can be  
true, and never actually falisfied. We can of course never know that,  
but that's does not make it non existing, on the contrary, this can be  
used to show that science needs some form of faith, in some reality.

Bruno




>
> > "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
>
> Experience has to be interpreted and the interpretation may be  
> wrong, so Bacon is wrong.
>
> >>> 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.
> >
> > 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,
>
> We can say that it's possible to have an X-ray machine before we  
> build one. Having an explanation as to why it should be possible to  
> build one doesn't justify the idea that it is possible, but then nor  
> does actually building an X-ray machine because we may be mistaken  
> about what we have built. So you are fooling yourself.
>
> >>> 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?
> >
> > 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!
>
> Conjecture and criticism are not a means of justification as you  
> have explained it above.
>
> Alan
> 

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]