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

On 18 Feb 2013, at 18:25, JAG wrote:

>
>
> --- In [email protected], Bruno 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!!!!
>

Only a proposition can be true or false, and always with respect to  
some semantic, which can be left implicit, or made explicit. In  
interdisciplinary studies, this leads to difficulties. In the  
academical realm, we are still at the stage where diplomats are  
killed, so some effort in rigor seems premature.

Now, a justification can be valid or non valid. But not true or false.




>
> 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..... ;)
>
Well, I think so, but I am not well placed to say so! Thanks.



>
> 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?
>
I would not distinguish science and philosophy. That distinction has  
led some people to defend the idea that we can lack rigor in  
philosophy, and basically defend any idea. The distinction seem to be  
used for making curriculum boudaries, but it is not something  
fundamental.
The aim of science is knowledge, but we get only belief (falsifiable  
knowledge). Some truth can be found but they can never been publicly  
asserted as such. Even 0+0=0 is a belief. We can agree on, and start  
from that, but we cannot really prove it, unless we have already agree  
on some postulate and inference rule.




>
> Isn't the quest for Truth?
>
Yes, for fundamental science. For non fundamental science, all aims  
are possible, from money, glory, to satisfying personal dreams, like  
flying or visit the planet Mars.




> -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?
>
The answer to such question might differ according to your favorite  
metaphysics. With computationalism we need to accept some realism in  
arithmetic, and this lean to the idea that we discover most things,  
and invent few things.




>
> While Science is, and should be, about Discovery, I think that  
> Scientifc method is, at least in part, about Invention....
>
Even a method can be said to be discovered, especially if the method  
seems to work.



>
> and everything is still in progress....
>
My opinion is that as long as theology has not come back to academy  
(which is the worst thing except for all the other, paraphrasing  
Churchill), science cannot be said to have even begun. Science is  
modesty, and it is an attempt to not let emotions introduce wishful  
thinking a priori.




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

Science is a back-and-forth between observation, dialog and  
introspection, driven by curiosity, and respect of the others.


> all the best!
>
Best regards,

Bruno



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





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