Implications of Recent Developments in Network Science...really?

[JAG]

Here's the extra implication to the domain of 'philosphy of science' as
I see it.

Greetings to all.....
"How is 'experimental reasoning' about causes and effects itself
justified? In terms of deduction? that is impossible since the
conclusion of inductive arguments are not deductively derivable from
their premises. In terms of experimental reasoning? that is arguing
in circle."
-Hume

It isn't justified. Justification is unnecessary and impossible. See "The Beginning of Infinity" by David Deutsch and "Realism and the Aim of Science" by Karl Popper.

Alan,

sorry but i have to disagree. It's not impossible; but yes, kinda difficult. That's why if we are really good in what we do 'here' we'll find a way to justify IT.

Now, about 'legimization' and "justificatiohn":
if we can't justify a few things, then at bets, we are fooling ourselves or we are looking for LEGIT excuses to do so and get away with it! ;)

I am kinda surpised to hear that a few things don't justification

I am not here to argue about 'dogmas' but to find solutions to empirical methods/problems and conceptual issues in philosophy of science.

P.S. yes, i have read Popper, great stuff and i loved it, but he is kinda outdated and while briilint and 'correct' in many things, he is still limited to his own experiences/ability to see the whole and re-unite science and philosophy.


"To assert that metaphysical problems are meaningless is
unacceptable from the point of view of knowledge itself, not that
the validity of metaphysical knowledge can be accepted without
question, but because we are not justified in definitely
classification of a problem as either scientific or metaphysical; at
the most a disputed problem can be said to be without(cognitive)
meaning....there are can be many wisdoms, while ther exists only one
truth."
-Piaget

[Alan Forrester]

Post by JAG

Here's the extra implication to the domain of 'philosphy of science' as
I see it.

Greetings to all.....
"How is 'experimental reasoning' about causes and effects itself
justified? In terms of deduction? that is impossible since the
conclusion of inductive arguments are not deductively derivable from
their premises. In terms of experimental reasoning? that is arguing
in circle."
-Hume

It isn't justified. Justification is unnecessary and impossible. See "The Beginning of Infinity" by David Deutsch and "Realism and the Aim of Science" by Karl Popper.

Alan,
sorry but i have to disagree. It's not impossible; but yes, kinda difficult. That's why if we are really good in what we do 'here' we'll find a way to justify IT.

No. It's impossible. Knowledge can't be proven to be true since any argument that allegedly proves this has to start with premises and rules of inference that might be wrong. In addition, any alleged foundation for knowledge would be unexplained and arbitrary, so saying that an idea is a foundation is grossly irrational.

Post by JAG
if we can't justify a few things, then at bets, we are fooling ourselves or we are looking for LEGIT excuses to do so and get away with it! ;)

No. If you kid yourself that your ideas can be guaranteed true or probably true, rather than admitting that any idea you hold could be wrong, then you are fooling yourself and will spend at least some of your time engaged in an empty ritual of "justification" rather than looking for better ideas.

Post by JAG
I am kinda surpised to hear that a few things don't justification
I am not here to argue about 'dogmas' but to find solutions to empirical methods/problems and conceptual issues in philosophy of science.
P.S. yes, i have read Popper, great stuff and i loved it, but he is kinda outdated and while briilint and 'correct' in many things, he is still limited to his own experiences/ability to see the whole and re-unite science and philosophy.

You have not criticised Popper's ideas, nor have you even stated them. However, since you are interested in arguing about conceptual problems in the philosophy of science I have a question for you. What is your criticism of Popper's concept that all knowledge is created by conjecture and criticism and is totally unjustified and unjustifiable?

Alan