[an error occurred while processing this directive]
About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Saturday, July 27 - 1:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
http://conjecturesandrefutations.com/2013/07/27/a-refutation-of-nicholas-dykes-on-karl-popper/

Enjoy



Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Saturday, July 27 - 2:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Lesbians" is the preferred term.



Post 2

Saturday, July 27 - 11:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Surely, you're joking, Mr. Feynman, er Mr. Reidy! I'm sure that Nicholas Dykes would love to hear that "Lesbians" is the preferred term for his last name. ;-D



Post 3

Saturday, July 27 - 11:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Deleted.

(Edited by William Dwyer on 7/27, 11:42pm)




Post 4

Sunday, July 28 - 11:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If no one has a non-troll reply, can we agree that there are not outstanding refutations of Popperian epistemology? And that Objectivism needs one in order to rescue its points which Popper contradicts.



Post 5

Sunday, July 28 - 12:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If no one has a non-troll reply, can we agree that there are not outstanding refutations of Popperian epistemology? And that Objectivism needs one in order to rescue its points which Popper contradicts.

This is a non-troll reply.

There are many serious criticisms to Popperian Epistemology, so the answer to the question of "can we agree that there are not outstanding refutations of Popperian epistemology?" is a simple, "No."
-----------------

You wrote, "And that Objectivism needs one in order to rescue its points which Popper contradicts." Your language here leaves one wondering what "one" is referring to. If I refer back to the previous sentence to hunt for a subject I come up with "outstanding refutations" - but clearly you weren't intending to say that there are no outstanding refutations/criticisms of Rand. I'm guessing that you meant to say that you have delivered criticisms of Rand's epistemology, and that in your opinion they haven't been refuted, therefore Objectivist Epistemology is not knowledge.

That is, to my mind, a very peculiar way to engage in what appears to a kind of self-delusion. You present theories that start out saying that everyone is fallible, but you don't really apply it to yourself. Then you ignore any criticisms, call them troll replies, or ignorance or failure to try to understand, and then you finish up by saying, "Well, there are no refutations, therefore, what I said is knowledge and what you said is not."

It is a very clever system... as psychological self-massages go, but I certainly don't see it as the answer to a process for non-contradictory integration of new ideas into an individual's existing contextual, hierarchical structure of ideas in a way that gives him a high correspondence with reality.





Post 6

Sunday, July 28 - 12:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"There are many serious criticisms to Popperian Epistemology"

Can you provide citations to them?



Post 7

Sunday, July 28 - 4:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
When you ask me to provide you with citations, is that because you don't know of any?

Apel, Karl-Otto Transformation der Philosophie (1973).
Gray, John N. Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals (2002). ISBN 1-86207-512-3.
Kuhn, Thomas The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962)
Curd, Martin; Cover, J.A. (Eds.) (1998). Philosophy of Science, Section 3, The Duhem-Quine Thesis and Underdetermination, W.W. Norton & Company



Post 8

Sunday, July 28 - 7:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I don't think those are successful refutations of Popper. I was looking for more of a modern Objectivist piece. But, OK, which one do you think is the best and can you state in one or two paragraphs what the major criticism is?



Post 9

Sunday, July 28 - 8:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Elliot,
I don't think those are successful refutations of Popper. I was looking for more of a modern Objectivist piece.

But what about that go-around I had with Bill, and Sam, and Fred back in the day?:

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/ObjectivismQ&A/0397.shtml

It isn't an orthodox refutation but it does criticize Popper. Would you care to comment about it?

Ed




Post 10

Sunday, July 28 - 8:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Popper's negative view of induction is, in great part, rooted in his acceptance of Hume's criticism of causality. So that is one problem Popper has. The other problems are his kantian premises.




Post 11

Sunday, July 28 - 8:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Deconstructing Popper's Falsification and Vienna Circle Verification"

Ed, If you want to criticize Popper's ideas, first you have to learn what they are. Popper did not advocate a Falsificationism paralleling Verification but in a negative way. That is not even close.

Also I believe you linked this before and I commented already.

"Popper's negative view of induction is, in great part, rooted in his acceptance of Hume's criticism of causality. So that is one problem Popper has. The other problems are his kantian premises."

Michael, can you be more specific and offer a serious criticism or a citation to someone who has?
(Edited by Elliot Temple on 7/28, 8:31pm)




Post 12

Sunday, July 28 - 8:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
have you read any Objective literature? particularly that on the problem of universals?
(Edited by Michael Philip on 7/28, 9:01pm)

(Edited by Michael Philip on 7/28, 9:02pm)




Post 13

Sunday, July 28 - 9:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I will also add that Popper misrepresented Bacon every-time he spoke about him.



Post 14

Sunday, July 28 - 9:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes.



Post 15

Monday, July 29 - 2:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
so I presume you are familiar with Dr. Peikoff's works on induction? and induction in the Randian understanding.



Post 16

Monday, July 29 - 5:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
David Harriman based The Logical Leap partly on Peikoff's lecture series "Induction in Physics and Philosophy." There is one mention of Popper:
During the past century, however, many philosophers have rejected the validity of induction and argued that every generalization is an error. For example, Karl Popper claimed that all the laws of Kepler, Galileo, and Newton have been "falsified." By demanding that a true generalization must apply with unlimited precision to an unlimited domain, Popper upheld a mystical view of "truth" that is forever outside the reach of man and accessible only to an omniscient god. In the end, he was left with two types of generalization: those that have been proven false and those that will be proven false.
Isn't it amazing that the laws of Kepler, Galileo, and Newton have been "falsified", yet have stood the test of time of time so well? Obviously, exalting falsification into the essence of science makes a wrecking ball. In many instances, a theory can be saved from a falsification simply by limiting the context.




Post 17

Monday, July 29 - 6:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
ah there is that "unlimited precision" rearing its ugly head and saying that Einstein 'falisified' Newton is just laughable.



Post 18

Monday, July 29 - 10:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Newton's physics is false in its originally intended context, and this is quite important to science. Yes it can be rescued pretty well by limiting the context to stuff with slow speeds requiring only certain amounts of precision, and also stuff where no quantum effects come up (which excludes quite a few scattered things, such as light "bending" in water and desert mirages where blue light from the sky goes near the ground and back up to your eye). Popper knows about the remaining value in Newton's physics and possibility of a partial rescue. The Harriman book is not accurately representing Popper's full views on the matter.



Post 19

Monday, July 29 - 12:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Something to consider. You can't say, "All swans are white" necessarily and universally, because color is not essential to being a swan, but you can say that all ice floats on water, because ice is less dense than water. The lower density is an essential characteristic of ice.

True? If so, how does this affect Popper's theory?

(Edited by William Dwyer on 7/29, 1:08pm)




Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page
[an error occurred while processing this directive]


User ID Password or create a free account.