Re: Misrepresentation of Popper



"Jim McGinn" jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxx
JiM Menegay wrote

> > > > JE:-:
> > > > being wrong does not matter at all to the
> > > > sciences as long as what you propose is
> > > > refutable.

> > > Popper never employed such silly verbiage.
> > > He discussed whether hypotheses are *testable*.
> > > You yourself, John Edser, are the author of the
> > > notion that concepts (not hypotheses) are or
> > > are not refutable (not testable). Don't try to
> > > pawn it off on Popper.

> > Popper came pretty close to saying that, as I read him.

> He never did. If you think I'm wrong I can only ask that you quote
> him.


JE:-
Popper argued that the process of verification and all inductive
inferences only remain invalid. This just leaves refutation via
deduction within a process of conjecture and refutation. The conjecture
only constituted a refutable guess which was produced from the mind via
some unknowable process. Popper did not allow his proposition of
refutability to be a proposition of science so that refutability did not
itself have to be refutable. I argue that Popper's demarcation of
science is a proposition of science where the process of refutation must
itself be empirically refutable as a unique verification.

I regard my view is a valid evolution of Popper's view. I define a
conjecture as an inductive inference disposing of the unknowable process
of conjecture. My main argument is that any observed refutation must be
a verification of it's anti-thesis. This must be a unique verification
of a different theory to the one refuted. Unique means the observation x
within nature can only be verified by just the one theory (compared to
all the others on the table). In my epistemology verification must also
be valid where a unique verification for one theory must be as strong as
the refutation of it because it refutes the anti-thesis of that theory.


According to Popper verification/non verification are not sufficient in
themselves to discard/accept a theory. The rule of thumb I employ to
separate a refutation from verification/non verification is the mirror
image of the theory in question. If the reflection is not excluded as a
valid possibility of nature then it must constitute a non verification.
Only if the reflection is a defined impossibility within nature can it
constitute a refutation. If theory can be represented as a valid
mathematical expression then the multiplication the entire expression by
-1 produces a mirror image. As an example: Hamilton's Rule c > rb
reflects -rb < -c. If this represents EXACTLY the same theory as the
rule (as NAS argues that is does) then the rule can only be an empty
tautology. When the reflection only represents a validly opposing rule
then it represents a non verification. Any refutation of the rule must
be an entirely different expression which can provide a unique
verification of itself, i.e. it has to represent a different concrete of
nature and not just the absence of a concrete. No refutation for
Hamilton's Rule exists because the total fitness of the actor has been
deliberately excluded. This critical missing total fitness actually
represents a refutable fitness maximand (something that is being
maximised in all cases). The mirror image of this maximand becomes a
minimand (something that is being decreased at a maximal rate in all
cases). Reducing a maximand fitness to a minimand fitness disallows any
evolution by natural selection so the Darwinian maximand represented as
just a minimand is not just a non verification is an absolute
impossibility for any evolution, i.e. a refutation. Thus I argue that
Total Darwinian Fitness cannot be selected to be reduced under any
circumstances.


> > Of course, John exaggerates in saying "being wrong
> > doesn't matter" - of course it matters - but I think
> > John is right to suggest that the "rightness" or "wrongness"
> > of a theory should not be the first concern of the
> > theorist, chronologically speaking, according to Popper.

JE:-
Popper was very specific. Be as outrageous as you like. As long as the
proffered view remains refutable only good can come from it. The reverse
also applies: be as conservative as you like, if the theory is non
refutable then no good can come from it. Excluding errors of logical
validity, only errors within a refutable proposition can actually be
diagnosed and removed. Similar errors within non refutable theory cannot
even be proven to be errors.

> Yes, but John is saying something different altogether. He
> is saying that popper said concepts and assumptions have to
> be "refutable." It's a nonsequitor. Come to think of it,
> almost everything John presents involves nonsequitor of some
> kind or another.

JE:-
A according to Popper any valid theory has to be refutable. This
requires some key concept or assumption within that theory to be
refutable. I define this as the absolute assumption of the theory. In
mathematics this constitutes one maximand for each theory. I have
provided a refutable maximand for evolutionary theory: Total Darwinian
fitness and outlined an experiment (not just a model) that can refute my
proposed Darwinian maximand on an empirical basis. I have done all this
is required of me. Only the hopeless prejudice that exists here has
limited to almost zero any discussion of the Darwinian maximand fitness
I have proposed. Please note: within evolutionary theory today, *ALL*
empirical fitnesses remain epistatic.


> > The salient feature of Popper's epistemology is in the
> > curious way he treats the asymmetry between confirming
> > and refuting evidence for a theory. In contrast to most
> > philosophers before him, he attaches little value to
> > positive, confirming evidence. What he sees as adding
> > verisimilitude to a hypothesis or theory is the combination
> > of the absense of refuting evidence plus the apparent
> > openness of the theory to being refuted. The first concern
> > of the theorist, according to Popper, is to make sure that
> > the theory is open to refutation. Then try honestly to
> > refute it. If you fail (repeatedly) then perhaps you may
> > begin to tentatively believe in it.

> Right.

JE:-
Popper rejects any verification as a valid process.


> > However, if Jim's criticism of John refers mostly to John's
> > insistence that concepts (for example, "fitness") may be
> > formulated in a way that is either refutable or irrefutable -
> > well, then I have to agree with Jim.

> Yep.

JE:-
All of evolutionary theory stands or falls on just the fitness concept.
Any refutation of any proposed theory ends up as a prohibited measure of
fitness as defined by that theory. If you disagree then please outline
of any refutable theory of evolution that does _not_ require fitness to
be the only concept that provides a refutation of that theory.

> > John applies the word
> > "refutable" to many more kinds of things than Popper ever
> > did.

> Right. John's a nutcase and the second biggest liar on this NG.

JE:-
Thank you for the compliment. Logic argues that when a nutcase calls you
a "nutcase" then it is unlikely that you are one ;-)

It is a simple fact that all the parts of a theory are not of equal
value to that theory. The parts of it that can produce a valid
refutation of the entire theory remain limited. My proposition is that
only the maximand of the proposed theory can provide a point of
refutation for the entire theory.

I have defined a refutable maximand fitness for Darwinian evolutionary
theory and provided the outline of an experiment (not just a model) that
can refute it. Neo Darwinists have not provided a single refutation to
what they keep proposing as their "theory" of evolution. NAS argues that
fitness maximands are indeed, valid. However he has never proposed one.
Guy Hoelzer remains content to define fitness in just any malleable
"hand waving" way. Jim Menegay has failed to provide a refutation for
Neo Darwinism in general or Hamilton's Rule in particular. Jim McGinn
has failed to provide anything that could just be construed to be
understandable (let alone refutable). Most of what passes for valid
theory within Neo Darwinism is just irrefutable nonsense. In some cases
the level naivety is so high that people actually argue this is a _good_
thing....


>snip<

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser@xxxxxxxxxx





.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Misrepresentation of Popper
    ... Popper defines the quantitative verisimilitude which a statement ... The above was not a test to refutation, just a test to non verification. ... > falsification of a high-level scientific theory is never brought about ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Misrepresentation of Popper
    ... > Why don't you show us examples of where Popper supposedly wrote words ... >> deduction within a process of conjecture and refutation. ... >> must itself be empirically refutable as a unique verification. ... >> I have defined a refutable maximand fitness for Darwinian ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Misrepresentation of Popper
    ... > Why don't you show us examples of where Popper supposedly wrote words ... >> deduction within a process of conjecture and refutation. ... >> must itself be empirically refutable as a unique verification. ... >> I have defined a refutable maximand fitness for Darwinian ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: A FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE
    ... > I've never read Popper but have read and heard from innumerable sources ... The process of refutation is much more complex than it seems at first ... observed in nature then each respective theory stands refuted. ... absolute assumption) and not just a dictated category (a non evolutionists ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Misrepresentation of Popper
    ... >>> Popper came pretty close to saying that, ... > deduction within a process of conjecture and refutation. ... > itself be empirically refutable as a unique verification. ... This critical missing total fitness actually ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)