Re: Misrepresentation of Popper
- From: "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 01:45:41 -0400 (EDT)
> > JE:-
> > Popper argued that the process of verification and all inductive
> > inferences only remain invalid.
> JMcG:-
> Why don't you show us examples of where Popper supposedly wrote words
> to this effect, whatever it supposedly means.
JE:-
It means exactly what is says and remains a basic of Popper's
epistemology. I have no intention of wasting my time trying to educate
you on such a matter. I will simply leave you to attempt to refute what
I wrote.
> > JE:-
> > This just leaves refutation via
> > deduction within a process of conjecture and refutation.
> JMcG:-
> John, this last sentence involves you throwing bigs words around and
> pretending you know what they mean.
JE:-
Anybody with just a modicum of knowledge of epistemology can understand
what was written. It is obvious you have no such understanding and
refuse to be educated. If you do not know what the difference is between
a deductive and inductive inference then I suggest you read any
introduction to logic to find out. If you don't know what Popper meant
by a "conjecture" then read Popper's Book "Conjectures and Refutations".
> > JE:-
> > 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.
> JMcG
> It's surreal that you'd have us believe that Popper would supposedly
> comply with this nonsense. Several times I tried to figure out what
> you meant by this passage above and several times it ended in belly
> laughs.
JE:-
Not only is it obvious you have no idea about just the basics as to what
Popper was talking about, you refuse to have any idea about what anybody
else is talking about if they have the temerity to disagree with you.
You must be the most blinded self centred personality I have ever
encountered. You have almost no ability to just understand an argument
other than own let alone provide a valid critique of one! You always
display a hopeless zero level of scepticism to you own argument.
Popper argued that the process of refutation does not have to be
refutable itself, simply because he _defined_ refutation as _not_ being
a proposition of science. If he had defined it as a proposition of
science, refutation would itself have to be refutable to be self
consistent to his own argument. Popper's demarcation of science from non
science is the process of refutation where he excluded the process of
refutation as science. He could have included but chose not to. I
consider this to be an error so I have include it. This does not change
the concept but it does extend it.
> > JE:-
> > 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.
> JMcG:-
> Okay, now restate that such that it's refutable.
JE:-
It was always refutable simply because it stands refuted when:
Popper's demarcation of science can be proven NOT to be a proposition of
science so it does not have to be refutable within Popper's described
epistemology, i.e. the process of refutation can remain just a dictate
of Popper.
I am proposing an _empirical_ symmetry such that the refutation of x is
equal to a unique verification of y so that y refutes x and x refutes y
where this statement now excludes Popper's _asymmetrical_ empirical
dictate as to what a refutation is.
> > JE:-
> > 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.
> JMcG:-
> John has just recasts the laws of reality to fit his own pseudo-logic
> POV.
JE:-
Jim attempts to enforce on himself and others, a zero ability to
understand any argument other than his own.
> > > JMcG:-
> > > 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
> JMcG:-
> I assure you that nobody has a clue what you are saying here and if
> they think they do then I hereby challenge them to attempt to describe
> such that it is comprehendable to normal rational humans like myself.
JE:-
Jim cannot understand what a finite total is and cannot understand that
it is indeed _possible_ to assume that such a total can only be
naturally selected to increase and not decrease. Apparently what McGinn
refuses to understand nobody else can be allowed to understand. I think
most of us grow out of this immature stage around 4 years of age.
> > JE:-
> > and provided the outline of an experiment (not just a model) that
> > can refute it.
> JMcG:-
> . . . that can refute what? You keep telling us you've presented
> something but nobody can ever locate it.
It appears Jim refuses to read what he disagrees with. I have defined
total Darwinian fitness over 100 times within sbe! Here it is yet again
(it will not make any difference because Jim can only actually see what
he agrees with).
Total Darwinian fitness: The total number of fertile forms reproduced by
each parent into one population.
This total represents a Darwinian fitness maximand (a total fitness that
is always trending to _increase_) because Total Darwinian Fitness can
only be _selected_ to increase. I have outlined an experiment (not just
a model) that can test this Darwinian maximand fitness proposition to
refutation. If this is all just too hard for Jim to understand why
doesn't he employ the simple courtesy of giving the author the benefit
of the doubt and then engage basic scepticism: ask critical questions
rather than just spewing boring Nihilistic rhetoric.
> > JE:-
> > Neo Darwinists have not provided a single refutation to
> > what they keep proposing as their "theory" of evolution.
> JMcG:-
> What's a "refutation?"
JE:-
Please refer to Popper to find out.
> > JE:-
> > 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
> > _good_
> > thing....
> JMcG:-
> Uh, so, let me get this straight. I think I get what you're saying.
> What you're saying is that what you say is refutable is good and what
> you say is irrefutable is bad and we should just defer to your>
judgement > on whether or not a concept is refutable or irrefutable
(and,
> therefore, either good or bad) which, of unfortunately, is
necessitated
> by the fact that you seem to be the only person on this planet who has
> the slightest idea what you supposedly mean when you say that concepts
> can be refutable or irrefutable.
JE:-
I simply employ Popper's concept of refutation: an observation of nature
that is 100% prohibited by the theory under test as a deduction from
that theory e.g. c cannot be exceeded within Special Relativity theory
as a valid deduction from that theory. However, if such an increase
becomes a documented observation of nature then the theory stands
refuted. The fact that I argue that such a refutation must be logically
equal to a unique verification of the anti-thesis of the refuted
argument leaves Popper's refutation concept intact but extended.
YET AGAIN: McGinn cannot provide a FITNESS that can even be construed to
be comprehensible let alone refutable so his efforts here appear to be
just 100% boring Nihilistic rhetoric against any idea that he perceives
may be different to his own.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
edser@xxxxxxxxxx
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Misrepresentation of Popper
- Next by Date: Re: Precision is not likely in the OOL
- Previous by thread: Re: Misrepresentation of Popper
- Next by thread: Re: Misrepresentation of Popper
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
