/lit/ - Literature

muh falsebility

>>15843440
That's your only feedback?

Solving philosophy means nothing.
That's how irrelevant it is to begin with.

Explain to me how falsifiability isn't refuted with probabilistic theories, or what's our reason to apply any corroborated theory into practice expecting results out of it without appealing to the principle of induction

Did anyone here read The Open Society and Its Enemies? Maybe because philosophy isn't my thing, but the few pages I read are just him criticizing other philosophers and ideas. I was expecting a presentation of his own thing.

>>15843559
Would fuck the twink desu.

>>15843892
Wait isn't falsifiability just about using a theory as a tool that we are measuring its ability to work, I.E. if through its use it is working, or not being falsified?

Why wouldn't probabilistic theories be just that? Why wouldn't Induction just be "it hasn't been falsified yet"

>>15843892
The Popperian argument for scientific realism was always probabilistic anyway. The idea was that you could arrive successively more approximately correct theories by pruning the bad ones one by one. Probabilistic theories just add another slight vagueness that isn't a serious issue. Just propose a theory for calculating the relevant probabilities, make probabilistic predictions that are, say, 99% likely to be correct if the theory is true, then see if that prediction came to pass. We might keep some bad apple theories along the way, but the theories that survive the stringent testing will be used to make other predictions later anyway, so we'll get larger sample sizes as probabilistic theories get pruned.

>>15843960
> Why wouldn't probabilistic theories be just that?
You can never falsify a probabilistic theory because all they assert is that some event is less or more probable. If you observe a low-probability event, you can't say that it has been falsified on logical grounds. Now all modern sciences (including hard sciences) are predominantly statistical so we're throwing all them into the metaphysical bucket.

> Why wouldn't Induction just be "it hasn't been falsified yet"
Corroboration only asserts (in a very weak way) that the theory worked for the past. To extrapolate them to the future you need to take an extra step that is not based in logic (problem of induction).

> Wait isn't falsifiability just about using a theory as a tool that we are measuring its ability to work
To be more precide, falsifiability only states if a theory is able to be falsified, it's meant to be used as a demarcation criterion. Corroboration, or "it hasn't been falsified yet" is very hard to apply in practice.

>>15843431
wtf have you not heard of Salmon or Kuhn

>>15843431
>Is metaphysics dead?
No? Nor would Popper suggest that. Do you know what his 'critical rationalism' is about? Yes he takes a stance against the falsifiable, but it's not a weird semantic theory for him like verificationism was. Instead, he proposes that the sciences take greater risks when developing theories. He praises the Presocratics for their rationalism (rather than mere empiricism) and suggests science since Bacon has lost that aspect. Popper was not a positivist.

>>15844334
>He praises the Presocratics for their rationalism (rather than mere empiricism) and suggests science since Bacon has lost that aspect.
So he thought that a priori metaphysical speculations are fine until they are falsified?

>>15843431
Why has nobody posted this yet? Karl Popper is a hack.

>>15843923
>but the few pages I read are just him criticizing other philosophers and ideas. I was expecting a presentation of his own thing.
That is "his own thing." He attempts to trace the source of fascism and "totalitarianism" to the philosophy of Plato.

>>15844723
That's the point yeah. The problem is when you present things that are unfalsifiable, things there's no way to falsify. He doesn't automatically oppose creativity in theory-building though. He values the Presocratics' creativity and notes that in certain ways they actually made true speculations. He has a paper on it called "Back to the Presocratics," it's pretty nice.

>>15844799
Wouldn't that approach run into problems regarding the epistemic status of sense data? If we use empirical observation to falsify theories how would you falsify a statement such as "I am in pain right now"?

>>15844843
Popper is not interested in falsifying that kind of statements. Scientific theories according to Popper have the form of universal statements, but the one you mentioned is a singular statement because it references yourself. The role singular statements play is in falsifying theories that imply them. For example a theory could be "nobody is ever in pain when they're healthy". If you see a healthy man in pain the theory is falsified. Now you ask me how you verify if the man is in pain - it is done by convention (you just decide to accept it or not). Of course if you specify better what's "in pain" or "healthy" by for example saying instead "the man is crying" and "he has nutrient levels above X" it will be easier for other people to accept it.

>>15844908
There is another possible objection. How can we claim that eg. evolution is a better theory regarding the origin of species than intelligent design? Both of them seem unfalsifiable.

>>15844941
If both were totally unfalsifiable then sure you couldn't claim one is better than the other. But I think you can design some experiments to test evolution on a microscopic scale. If both aren't falsified, you should prefer the one that is "easier to falsify", that is, the one with a bigger set of falsifiers (a falsifier is a singular statement that contradicts the theory).

>>15844941
I hear Popper once considered Darwinism unfalsifiable, and thus questioned its scientific status. Later, he recognized that it was scientific regardless and revised his opinion.

>>15845022
>But I think you can design some experiments to test evolution on a microscopic scale.
Right but those experiments wouldn't falsify either evolution or intelligent design, so the two theories would remain on equal footing. I don't think we can justify the scientific status of evolutionary theory unless we drop the purely falsificationist method and accept that it is also possible to confirm a theory by empirical observation.

>>15845144
They are not on equal footing, because although both weren't falsified, their degree of falsifiability is different. There are observations that would contradict evolution but, no observations that would contradict intelligent design. Imagine two theories "dogs aren't able to fly" and "puppy dogs aren't able to fly" - both are not falsified, but all statements that would contradict the first would also contradict the second theory, so we prefer the first because of its degree of testability/simplicity.
> unless we drop the purely falsificationist method and accept that it is also possible to confirm a theory by empirical observation.
I don't know what you mean by that or how that would help.

>>15845316
Correction: all statements that contradict the second theory also contradict the first

>>15843559

What the fuck did I just watch

gonna save this and repost every time I catch someone defending the decline of the United States

>>15845316
>They are not on equal footing, because although both weren't falsified, their degree of falsifiability is different. There are observations that would contradict evolution but, no observations that would contradict intelligent design.
I guess I just don't see how the theory of evolution is more easily falsified. What possible observation could render false the hypothesis that that the origin of species is adaptation through natural selection? Intelligent design seems similarly unfalsifiable.
>I don't know what you mean by that or how that would help.
I propose that a good explanation should try to achieve as much explanatory power with the smallest possible amount of theoretical commitments. So the evolutionary evidence from fossils, genetics etc. is basically a bundle of data that the evolutionary theory is particularly apt to explain. The creationist, unless he believes that God created the species through evolution, cannot explain these data points satisfactorily. Moreover, the Creationist has one more theoretical commitment that the Evolutionist has no need for, namely God. Hence Evolution is the best scientific theory that accounts for the origin of species according to the criteria I proposed. But I can only make this argument by abandoning a purely falsificationist account of the proper scientific method.

>>15844941
We can dig up fossils, amd based on our data predict which ones we will dig up in what layer of the earth. That's falsifiable. If we were to find modern rabbit fossils next to dinosaur fossils then evolution would be in a world of pain. Why has that mever happened? Probably because evolution is correct.

>>15845432
No.

>>15843431
Yes.
>Plato, Hegel, and Marx are all bad because they don't like democracy and I like democracy

>>15845576
> What possible observation could render false the hypothesis that that the origin of species is adaptation through natural selection?
Selective breeding is a good place to start. Take a bunch of bacteria, submit them to high temperature for example to the point that some of them will die because of it, leave them hanging around for some time, you expect the next generations to be more resistant to high temperature. If they aren't then there's some weird shit going on (problems with probability that I mentioned earlier). The creationist could resort to anything like "God didn't want them to adapt".

> So the evolutionary evidence from fossils, genetics etc. is basically a bundle of data that the evolutionary theory is particularly apt to explain
Good point, I guess it can be valid as a weaker form of corroboration. However, if you allow data from the past to corroborate your theory, then you'll have to allow creationists mentioning the existence of the Bible as a form of corroboration of their beliefs. It seems difficult to come up with criteria to resolve what is a good explanation of the past, without being able to submit it to future tests. Marxists for example would be happy your proposal, because it will be easy to explain history through dialectical materialism.

>>15845706

>>15845686
What?
I saw a puppy dog flying - falsifies both theories
I saw an old dog flying - falsifies only first theory
Therefore, first theory is stronger, it contains more information because it prohibits more observations. If both are corroborated, you can hold only the first with no loss of information because it implies the second.

>>15843431
Pop me no Popper
Have you never heard of WVO Quine?

>>15845759
He was a bit of a nominalist. I wouldn't regard that as any contradiction just a centrism.

even Quine had an ontological turn

>>15845759
>>15845768
>>15845778
Maybe I'm being dense at this time of night but I can't tell what the hell any of you three are trying to say, and I know Quine pretty well. Is one of you saying Quine killed philosophy? What's the contradiction/centrism response about? How does Quine having an ontological turn relate to this thread? And what do you mean?

What was Popper's ontological stance?

>>15847193
on his knees

>>15845846
Popper didn't kill philosophy or metaphysics because Quine's project of naturalising metaphysics remains intact