Re: *Justification* and *Explanation* in Science and in Methodology

--- In [email protected], Bruno Marchal <marchal@...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> To be sure, I am not sure I understand the critics of "justification".  
> I think that people makes a links between truth and justification  
> which does not exist. I am not sure there is any difference in  
> "explanation" and "justification", except as nuances, useful at some  
> stage, but misleading outside a rigorous theory, making clear what is  
> assumed, and what is derived. Both BOI and FOR seems to me having a  
> lot of justification and a lot of inductive inference too. Each time  
> we refer to a theory, we do an induction, even for a mundane theory  
> like "we have to pay bill", or the like. I guess I might miss  
> something, of course, but it looks it might be just a problem of  
> vocabulary, and this hides the real critics I can do on FOR, like  
> presenting the 'physical Church-Turing thesis" as a more precise  
> version of Church's thesis, where I think it is just a complete  
> different thesis, probably even contradicting Church-Turing thesis (at  
> least when we assume computationalism, as David Deutsch is doing).
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
> 
> 

Hi, Bruno,

I agree that (and for our purposes here), there is no difference between 'explanation' and 'justification'.

Furthermore, i argue that without them, we can not have the necessary *meaning* to carry out our important tasks (minly, theory construction and testing)  

Justifications are exactly the explanations we need, and at the same time, we are looking for, to give meaning and justify any event -method/theory/science! 

Furthermore, i don't believe that we can truly test for any validity and reliability without having, and giving, the proper *justification* first. 

Again, that's exactly my point and critique of Popper's claim that justification is not necessary, (and then, that a few things are not justifiable.) 

Accordning to my view, and as i(probably poorly) explained it in my previous post, Popper failed to provide the *criteria* which could make his claims true and valid!

In specific, and using his method/terms, i suggested that Popper's (and his supporters 'here') can not really show how and why *justifications* are intrinsically false and inappropriate!!!!

Based on these terms, I believe that your 'Computationalism' example *proves* a few things -and serves an as an excellent example about *method* and *epistemological* thinking..... ;)

Last but not least, i am glad to see that some people can *THINK* for themselves here!

Friendly question/reminder here: What is the aim of Science -and philosophy for that matter? 

Isn't the quest for Truth? -and for some of us here, at the same time, it is also the quest for the Holy Grail! ;) 

and, similarly, sorry but I can't resist and ask again: 

what is all about? Is it about Discovery or Invention? 

While Science is, and should be, about Discovery, I think that Scientifc method is, at least in part, about Invention....

and everything is still in progress....


"It is the theory that decides what we can observe." -Albert Einstein


;)


all the best!

JAG