Re: 'Justified' Developments in Philosophy of Science...? are we there yet?

On 15 Feb 2013, at 16:12, JAG <jaguarnight2012-/[email protected]> 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".
> 
> hmm...i think we are playing with words here, especially when you say 'solely' (and i agree to a certain degree) but Philosophy does aim at the logical clarification of thoughts and NOT just @ philosophical problems. I don't see where and why someone would disagree….

Wittgenstein aimed to restrict philosophy to deal only with clarifying words and concepts. I am saying that philosophy deals with a wider set of problems than that.

> Somehow, you sound very 'opinioned' and in favor of Popper's ideas as the ultimate truth=as method, and again, while i agree and use most of his concepts, I don't think that Popper's intention was to produced some dogmatic method/philosophy.
> 
> Actually, i am using his brilliant 'refutation' concept/method to *refut* some of his own ideas. ;)

A refutation involves pointing out some problem that a position fails to solve. You have not done this.

> and please comment on my Piaget's quote? what do you think of that? anyone? 
> 

> "To assert that metaphysical problems are meaningless is
> unacceptable from the point of view of knowledge itself, not that
> the validity of metaphysical knowledge can be accepted without
> question, but because we are not justified in definitely
> classification of a problem as either scientific or metaphysical; at
> the most a disputed problem can be said to be without(cognitive)
> meaning....there are can be many wisdoms, while ther exists only one
> truth."
> -Piaget


This quote does not explain Piaget's position. What problem is Piaget trying to address? What does "without (cognitive) meaning" mean? 

>> 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.
> 
> well, ok, If knowledge can NOT be proben to be true, then all SCIENCE and all theories and methods are fraudulent! To avoid such pitfalls and that kind of irrational thinking, we need to be situation/theory-specific and then use examples to make sense ?...and be rational. 
> Rational enough to see what works and wise enough to choose the next best and available solution -beyond dogmatic thinking and reasoning. I would say that some knowledge can be said to be proven true, for the time being, based on 'evidence' and other agreeable conditions, and of course until it is proven wrong...HOW ELSE? (and like that we are still in line with Popper, not bc Popper said so, but bc it works!) ;)

You are taking for granted that justification (showing that an idea is true or probably true) is necessary for rationality and knowledge. It is not necessary. We can try to discover better ideas by looking for criticisms of our current ideas, suggesting solutions to those problems and looking for problems with the solutions. 

Knowledge is just useful or explanatory information: it does not have to be justified. Scientists have created a lot of useful and deep knowledge by looking for problems with their previous ideas and suggesting better replacements. Why would they need to do anything else?

What problem does the idea of justification solve that cannot be solved with conjecture and criticism?

>>> 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.
> 
> Again, if that is valid, then it should be valid for all 'arguments' incuding Popper's idea about how a few things are 'totally unjustified and unjustifiable' -and that would imply that Hume (as quoted earlier) is correct. ;)

Arguments serve as ways to criticise ideas not to justify them.

> "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


Hume like you assumes that justification is necessary. Both you and he are wrong.

> Furthermore, how can you claim that we can NOT take a condition for granted? That is a hasty generalization used to prove your argument here, and while true for some, not true and valid for ALL conditions. 

Why take a condition for granted rather than proposing it as a conjecture that may be wrong?

> I think, i can see what you mean and you are right up to a point but for the wrong reasons as you stated above. :)
> Please, support your idea (if you care of course), with your own words and thinking, why *justification* is not necessary and then why it can NOT be conditional.

I have already addressed the non-necessity. As for why it can't be conditional. I can just take any step in your argument and ask you to justify it, show why it is true or probably true. And then I can take that argument, pick a step and ask you to justify it. And I can keep doing this indefinitely. Even if I were willing to grant some set of conditions that doesn't matter because the rest of your argument can be taken to pieces indefinitely.

>>> "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.
> 
> Again Allan, I strongly disagree. Bacon is not wrong but let's say..he is kinda incomplete and not that all-inclusive. You are right though that exeperience needs to be interpreted, and that's why in my 'model' and reasoning/approach i have to use findings and 'analogies' from cognitive psychology and other fields.
> 
> A quick answer to the 'interpetation' problem as you put it, is nothing else but Whitehead's idea that 'the process of reality becomes reality itself" and that would be good enough, and *justified* enough to solve and explain a few things -based on findings from perceptual/cognitive processes ;)

This is vague. I'm not going to say anything further in reply because there is not enough substance here for any further criticism.

>>> 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.
> 
> 
> Allan, yes, as i CONDIOTIONALLY explained it above. ;) 
> 
> To illustrate, think and please relate the argument above, to Ayer's last words, after his near death experience:
> "What I saw when I was dead....slightly weakened my conviction that my genuine death ... will be the end of me, though I continue to hope that it will be."
> 
> then he revised it and said:
> 
> "what I should have said is that my experiences have weakened, not my belief that there is no life after death, but my inflexible attitude towards that belief"
> 
> Now, use the above, as an example of how 'Conjecture and Criticism' could justify epistemeologically certain truths -in this case, not about death, but about his 'inflexible attitude' ;)
> 
> My point here, epistemologically thinking the 'unjustfiable' argument in NOT valid, certain aspects are both very NECESSARY and very JUSTIFIED-JUSTIFIABLE too.
> 
> Finally, and to take advantage of his great last words, I think that's the spirit, the FLEXIBLE attitude we all need to have here, regardless of any other differences we might (?) have  -to understand both the 'problem' and what we are talking about..!


What is the distinction between (1) a conditional justification, and (2) an idea that you have not managed to refute and are not currently actively trying to refute because it doesn't seem problematic?

Alan


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    Fabric-of-Reality-fullfeatured-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    Fabric-of-Reality-unsubscribe-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/