What is a human being? What is life? Can science give us reliable answers to such questions? The electricity of life. The meaning of human consciousness. Are we alone? Are the traditional contests between science and religion still relevant? Does the word "spirit" still hold meaning today?
Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer
-
Plasmatic
- Posts: 800
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:14 pm
Post
by Plasmatic » Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:39 pm
In science we would say this/these swan(s) is/are white because... We'd explain why all swans we have observed are white. It would make no sense to explain an observation that hasn't happened yet.
I disagree on this. If we identify the essential elements involved in a given context we can say that the same effect will be observed in the future, given the same essential context. A bald universal without context is a mere guess. In this way our proposed causes are verifiable. We work from past observations to draw valid inferences and test forward from these . Popper said we simply pick concepts out the air, devise a test and in the future, if it does not achieve the desired result, its falsified. This is working backwards.
He denied any generality from specific instances could be valid. So one who accepts this would have to deny :
All existents have identity.
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"......" I am therefore Ill think"
Ayn Rand
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Aristotle
-
altonhare
- Posts: 1212
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
- Location: Baltimore
-
Contact:
Post
by altonhare » Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:13 am
Plasmatic wrote:In science we would say this/these swan(s) is/are white because... We'd explain why all swans we have observed are white. It would make no sense to explain an observation that hasn't happened yet.
I disagree on this. If we identify the essential elements involved in a given context we can say that the same effect will be observed in the future, given the same essential context. A bald universal without context is a mere guess. In this way our proposed causes are verifiable. We work from past observations to draw valid inferences and test forward from these . Popper said we simply pick concepts out the air, devise a test and in the future, if it does not achieve the desired result, its falsified. This is working backwards.
He denied any generality from specific instances could be valid. So one who accepts this would have to deny :
All existents have identity.
Explain, we do in the past tense. It doesn't make any sense to explain in future tense.
However I agree that, given 2 identical situations, there will be identical results. Any observation I make, if that exact circumstance were somehow reproduced, I should make the same observation.
If I think a circumstance is identical to before, and I get a nonidentical result, I now have the task to explain (past tense) this result.
Physicist: This is a pen
Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests