Re: Misrepresentation of Popper
- From: "Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 16:51:28 -0400 (EDT)
John Edser wrote:
> > > 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,
Well? Why don't you?
> whatever it supposedly means.
>
> JE:-
> It means exactly what is says and remains a basic of Popper's
> epistemology.
Show us. Don't tell us.
> 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.
I wrote that you misrepresented Popper. And the proof is in the fact
that you won't support your interpretation of popper with his own
words.
>
> > > 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".
What part of this book supposedly supports your proposal.
>
> > > 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.
It would seem you are describing yourself perfectly.
>
> Popper argued that the process of refutation does not have to be
> refutable itself,
Show us. Don't tell us. Quote him directly you nimrod. What in the
world makes you think anybody would take the word of somebody whose so
thoroughly established himself as a whacko here in this NG.
> 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.
Anothe example of semantic insanity.
>
> > > 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
So, what you say "stands refuted," because . . . uh, . . . because you
say it does. Right? Is this the way it works?
> 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.
Amazing.
>
> > > 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
It seems to have everything to do with poor english usage and little or
nothing to do with science.
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!
Your definitions are comedic accumulations of nonsequitor upon
nonsequitor.
Here it is yet again
> (it will not make any difference because Jim can only actually see
what
> he agrees with).
I can only agree if it first at least makes sense. With you, the more
you talk the less sense you make.
>
> 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.
This is really what it is for you John, isn't it. Your heart really
isn't in science. Your heart is in opposing nihilism.
>
> > > 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.
You can start by showing us where Popper ever even used this particular
word.
>
> > > 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.
If you says so.
>
> 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.
Evolutionary theory when approached with rigorously reductive
scientific techniques is inevitably nihilistic. Nihilism is,
undeniably, unhealthy. If you can't take the heat stay out of the
kitchen. Don't go putting words in Popper's mouth to pretend that
you've found an non-nihilistic solution. You just dig yourself deeper.
Jim
.
- References:
- Re: Misrepresentation of Popper
- From: John Edser
- Re: Misrepresentation of Popper
- Prev by Date: Re: The cost of substitution
- Next by Date: Re: OOL X - The origin of the RNA world.
- Previous by thread: Re: Misrepresentation of Popper
- Next by thread: Re: Misrepresentation of Popper
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
