Answer to Dykes

Bill, I'm not a Popperian, or that conversant with his epistemology, but this would be my guess as to how his supporters would answer that:

- Statement: All ice floats on water (because ice is less dense than water)

- My Guess as to the Popperian Reply: We are fallible. There may be some context, which we might discover in the future, where ice does not float on water. We might discover that the density if a product of gravity, or local magnetic field properties, or something we can't even think of now, but which could exist on some other planet or solar system, and it would show that there is an exception to the rule that makes us currently think that lower density is an essential characteristic of ice. And, knowledge cannot be established by induction which never works.

- My Evaluation: It is a fallacy to offer a made up hypothetical that has no evidence to support it as if it could stand as valid criticism. To say that some other solar system might have differing physical laws is no different under the principles of logic from saying that if we looked under all of the leaves on the ground we might find a miniature elf that could make ice sink. Induction based upon valid deductive analysis of properties, including causality, can generate knowledge.

Post 21

Monday, July 29, 2013 - 4:50pm

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?

Not all ice floats on all water. If you have a big piece of ice, and a small bit of water, for example, it would freeze the water not float. Or in a hot place they'd both turn into water vapor. Or in a place without gravity it wouldn't apply. Or at a place with a human who likes to pick up ice, the ice wouldn't float on the water.

I don't know what kind of effect on Popper's theory you expected in any case. If it was true, so what?

If you define stuff as non-ice if it doesn't float on water, then say all ice floats on water, and you limit the contexts carefully, and add enough premises, then you could try to make something unassailable. But to what end? Interesting science isn't scared to exposing itself to criticism.

Post 22

Monday, July 29, 2013 - 9:46pm

Not all ice floats on all water. If you have a big piece of ice, and a small bit of water, for example, it would ...

I love this guy!

:-)

Ed

Post 23

Monday, July 29, 2013 - 10:13pm

I can't tell if you're joking or what your meaning is.

I genuinely think it's important that many statements which sound like obvious universal truths have counter examples. And the amount of context-specifying necessary to protect them often makes them stop seeming nearly so universal.

Universal truths are great to strive for, but not so easy to attain.

Post 24

Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - 11:59am

Difficult but not impossible. Sophistry aside , rape and slavery are abhorrent. There is no confusion about that, no uncertainty. Neither is open to 'improvement.'

Ditto freedom vs tyranny. No confusion at all. Same principle found at core: free vs forced association.

Its hard to find a bigger losing agenda than forced association, there is a universal truth. Am I confused because so many of my fellow naked sweaty apes have yet marched behind that fasce? Not even a little bit. Gives me no pause at all. Sleep like a baby.

Im not even confused by the assertion that there are no universal truths other than the assertion that there are no universal truths. That kind of naval gazing is a cul de sac of thought. Im fine with 'universal enough' and get on with my life.'

Regards,
Fred

Post 25

Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - 12:16pm

Then, does a big piece of ice sink into a little bit of water, if it does not float?

These edge cases are sophistry...word games. They are not about 'acquisition of knowledge.' They are about putting ideas into a blender and declaring acquisition of knowledge is impossible when the unsurprising result is gibberish littering a cul de sac(going nowhere.) And yet there is the objective reality of 12 sets of foot prints on the Moon.

Mankind -can- meander into cul de sacs. Men have sometimes not.

Regards,
Fred

PS: if it walks like deconstruction, and talks like deconstruction, then im guessing a Major in English at some point.
(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 7/30, 12:22pm)

Post 26

Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - 1:29pm

No I've never been an English Major. Ugh!!

Please don't post further privacy-invading speculation and accusations about me.

Post 27

Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - 1:52pm

Newton's physics is false in its originally intended context, and this is quite important to science.

it's classical mechanics poisoned by bad philosophy. We all know what Newton's law of gravitation says and what it does not, which does not make it a false theory. Harriman has a good view of Popper, who doesn't understand how science works and is just anti-conceptual and sets the bar very low. Then again what more can be expected from a modified Kantian who couldn't differentiate between awareness and forming propositions
(Edited by Michael Philip on 7/30, 1:54pm)
(Edited by Michael Philip on 7/30, 3:02pm)

Post 28

Thursday, August 1, 2013 - 7:59am

Elliot:

I've never majored in English, either. My apologies for suggesting the cruelest of all cuts.

But I have been from time to time subjected to their political inspired special brand of reasoning. Their Didera/ideas in a blender inspired nonsense has seeped into other liberal arts departments across the board, and like spilled sewage, sometimes leave a distinctive deconstructed smell.

As in, your deconstruction of Ed's ice/water example into a nonsensical edge case. And yes, what is readily agreed to and understood as 'ice' does not sink into 'water,' and a large amount of ice does not sink into a small amount of water, only not just as so.

It was an example of ideas into a blender, and a cherry picking of newly constructed ideas from the freshly deconstructed words. If what is meant by 'uncertainty' is, you never know when someone is going to show up with a deconstructing word blender, then for certain, there is no certainty in the world.

regards,
Fred

Post 29

Thursday, August 1, 2013 - 9:07pm

Elliot wrote,

Not all ice floats on all water. If you have a big piece of ice, and a small bit of water, for example, it would freeze the water not float. Or in a hot place they'd both turn into water vapor. Or in a place without gravity it wouldn't apply. Or at a place with a human who likes to pick up ice, the ice wouldn't float on the water.

The example about all ice floating on water assumed a normal context, such as an ice cube in a large glass of water. It also assumed that the water had not yet frozen, that the ice had not yet melted, that there was normal gravity and that the ice was actually on the water. Is it really necessary to spell that out? In presenting these examples, one assumes a reasonable listener who can fill in the relevant context on his own.

Within that context, which should have been obvious, you're not going to find a piece of ice that sinks. Nor is it a matter of arbitrarily defining whatever sinks as non-ice. Keeping in mind what ice actually is -- solid H2O -- all ice does float on water.

To return to the swan example, before the discovery of black swans, it would certainly have been wrong to declare categorically that there are no black swans just because none had yet been observed. The reason is that color is not an essential feature of a swan. But it would have been correct to say that all swans have webbed feet and long slender necks because, unlike color, these are essential features.

Post 30

Friday, August 2, 2013 - 12:45pm

Universal in a "normal context" means ... not universal.

The swan thing is a universal not a limited contextual statement, and the context of that whole discussion is universals.

"Is it really necessary to spell that out?"

Yes it's necessary to pay careful attention to what statements are universal or not, which are supposed to be, which have exceptions, and other crucial issues.

"All swans are white" is a statement intended to have no exceptions (but which turned out to be false). "All ice floats in water" is a statement intended and known to have exceptions (which you call non-normal contexts). The two statements are different types of things.

This still leaves open the question of what your intended point is. What point are you trying to make? Would you go ahead and try to explain that?

Post 31

Friday, August 2, 2013 - 1:13pm

Elliot,

Bill was quite clear. He wrote, "...before the discovery of black swans, it would certainly have been wrong to declare categorically that there are no black swans just because none had yet been observed. The reason is that color is not an essential feature of a swan."

You wrote, "This still leaves open the question of what your intended point is. What point are you trying to make?" He made a very clear point about the difference between simple enumeration having nothing to do with an essential feature, and a statement that arises directly from an essential feature. The color of a swan is not essential to the nature of a swan but the change in density that comes with the change in physical state is an essential feature of water.

Do you not recognize this difference between an accidental feature and an essential feature?

Post 32

Friday, August 2, 2013 - 1:17pm

Steve,

What's your point? We both agree that thinking that all swans were white was a mistake. So what? What does this have to do with any of the issues we disagree about?

Post 33

Friday, August 2, 2013 - 1:52pm

Elliot, you asked,

What's your point?

I asked you, "Do you not recognize this difference between an accidental feature and an essential feature?"

My point, as was Bill's point, is that there is a difference between accidental features and essential features and that is a difference between the swan example and the ice example. How can you NOT see that point after it has been clearly 'pointed' out?

Post 34

Friday, August 2, 2013 - 3:11pm

But what does this point have to do with Popper or with anything I said?

I agree in general that some features of things are important, while others are parochial accidents.

Post 35

Friday, August 2, 2013 - 3:35pm

the broader point is that Popper was arguing mostly against enumeration, which the black swan is a good example of, and that the problem of induction is at the end of the day an issue of causation. Hume couldn't arrive at causal understanding because he held a nonsensical view of what constituted causation. Instead he had perceptual associations between concrete entities and actions. He's an excellent example of how the world looks like from the inside out to a concrete-bound human.
(Edited by Michael Philip on 8/02, 4:29pm)

Post 36

Friday, August 2, 2013 - 6:53pm

If a piece of ice sinks in a vat of water, do you throw out chemistry as falsified?

Post 37

Friday, August 2, 2013 - 7:49pm

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.

It's improper to say all ice floats on water. It's proper to say all pure ice floats on a larger volume of pure water, ceteris paribus. The latter is proper but not induction.

Post 38

Saturday, August 3, 2013 - 12:47am

Michael Philip wrote,

It's improper to say all ice floats on water. It's proper to say all pure ice floats on a larger volume of pure water, ceteris paribus.

Okay, that's more precise, but that of course is what I meant.

The latter is proper but not induction.

I would say that it is induction insofar as one came to that understanding by reasoning from particular instances of ice and water to the generalization that "All pure ice floats on a larger volume of pure water, ceteris paribus."

Similarly, from observing particular swans, one can infer that "All swans have webbed feet and a long neck." That too is a valid form of induction, because webbed feet and a long neck are essential properties of a swan. What is not a valid form of induction is to infer that since all observed swans are white, all existing swans are therefore white. The reason this is not a valid form of induction is that color is not an essential property of a swan.

Post 39

Saturday, August 3, 2013 - 2:29am