Post by hibbsaPost by Brett HallPost by hibbsaPost by Alan ForresterWhat would analysing science "directly" entail
Minimally it would entail a decision to cut out
the philosopher middle
men and go see for himself.
Whom does "himself" refer to? The scientist? You
want the scientist to "go see for himself" how
science is done or something?
Brett - I can see that I haven't made it clear yet what the correct approach would be to analyse Science. I can certainly reassure you though it is nothing to do with calls for empiricism or observing scientists at work. Although certainly it could and would naturally lead to that eventually, just as it does in science. I don't think there's a difference between real philosophy and real science. Neither does Deutsch so we agree.
That has nothing to do with the quote you have provided from me.
Post by hibbsaBut at the moment most of my effort is going into trying to shed light on what went wrong in the Popperian philosophy.
I don't know what has gone wrong with it. No one has suggested anything "went wrong" on this list. Of course there are many people who don't understand Popper, like say Kuhn and his many followers, who think Popper was wrong. But they never articulate a good reading of Popper and their criticisms can be dismissed as misunderstandings.
Now here you are saying you are "trying to shed light on what went wrong in the Popperian philosophy" and yet you provide no list of errors or criticisms. Can you provide an example, here and now? What's wrong with Popper's epistemology?
Reading through all of this post now, and my replies below, I challenge your claim to be shedding light. You are casting shadows and obscuring things. State, plainly, where Popper went wrong. State, clearly, what your improvements are. State, clearly, what "serious questions" you think need to be answered are.
Post by hibbsaI am not yet putting effort into explaining what I think the right approach entails. I think it is important to see how and why something went wrong in the Popperian philosophy becaue that is linked to how and why the way I used is correct. I think it's going to be hard to understand what went wront with Popper, and in some cases hard to want to understand. I of course fully accept this could go the other way.
So you cannot say what went wrong with Popper. But you assert *something* did. Something you don't know. And moreover you cannot (or choose not to) attempt an explanation as to what the right approach would entail.
What is there to engage with here, with you? Neither a criticism of Popper (beyond the bold assertion that he is "wrong") and no alternative epistemology to discuss. What are these posts about, then?
Post by hibbsaSo perhaps concentrate on the area I am putting effort in...what went wrong with Popper. If you want to.
You haven't convinced me that anything went wrong with Popper. In any of your posts.
Post by hibbsaAnd if I want to respond to future posts to me from you on this matter. We both have to want to. On my side I will need to see some sign of real thought.
I am not pretending to provide revelatory insights into Popperian epistemology that others on these lists have not already covered. It is hard to make genuine creative contributions to this area in the way David has. But I do claim to be criticising your lack of clarity. I'm not doing this to be nasty...criticism is the *only* way we can make progress and come to mutual understanding. For example, I'm not sure what you mean by "real thought". Sounds ad-hominem.
Post by hibbsaFYI the question you ask above and several below don't really 'do it' for me.
Post by Brett HallYou haven't answered the question. Not in the slightest. What would analysing science "directly" entail???
I think I did give a reasonable answer, so long as you realize there is no intrinsic 'right way' to do things.
What do you mean by "things" now? The scientific method? (okay, right, there's no one method that works all the time) or do you mean us discussing things here and now? Okay, there's no "right way" there either but there are productive and less-good ways of discussing stuff. Your obscure way of writing doesn't clarify. It casts shadows where a light would be better.
Post by hibbsaIt needs explaining. Each way raises its own problems and as Deutsch say, interesting problems are soluable. Popper could have made it work the way he did it, if he'd seen the problems and solved them.
What problems?
Post by hibbsaBut he didn't and that's the real issue here.
What problems?!
Post by hibbsaI think the reason he didn't is because the way everything was set up made it devilishly hard to 'see' the problem.
The problem? Not plural? Just one now? What is it?
Post by hibbsaAs indeed people are finding hard here. The 'direct' solution, is not direct in the empirical sense...and 'direct' probably isn't a good word. Let me try another simple expr? ession for the distinction between Popper Deutsch approach and mine.
What, exactly, is your approach to how science should be done and how knowledge grows? Can you improve on "guess and criticise", for example?
Post by hibbsaIf Popper Deutsch's approach could be summed up as the answer to this question: What if Science was Easy To Happen?
If it was easy then progress would be faster.
Post by hibbsaThen my approach could be summed up as: What if Science was Really Hard To Happen.
Progress would be slower.
Any problem with my responses?
Post by hibbsaI think this is a good way to understand things, and actually that question is pretty much what has guided me.
I don't. If science was harder or easier to do, then progress in science (and then all other fields) would speed up or slow down with respect to time, compared with the present rate when science is just as hard as it is.
I do not know how to measure the degree of hardness of science though. Some may have ideas on this. Do you? The world is explicable. Is it explicable but hard to understand? Yes. Nothing is obvious. How hard is it? I'm not sure that is even meaningful. It could be a category error. That is to say, it might be a question that admits of a qualitative, not quantitative answer...and you are after the latter. In error.
Post by hibbsaIf Popper Deutsch had asked that question at the start, I think they would have basically ended up with something along the lines of what they did get. A lucky coincidence of conditions allows a simple but profound thing called a Culture of Criticism to take root (one condition being 'Rejection of Authority').
This allows Science to be hard to happen but only in the sense the coincidence of the conditions needed to be 'lucky'
With Science Easy to Happen, then almost by definition the specific details of the specific way it happend aren't necessarily important. And in fact, as they 'discover' in the event was mostly all nonsense. So there you go.
There you go? I'm still unsure. Now I am thinking: is this "science easy to happen" thing about whether or not science would, or would not, come into existence *at all*? Is that your question? Such a counterfactual probably isn't at all important, except to historians. It's not a philosophical question. There have been accidents of history that meant enlightenments and progress occurred when they did. But given the existence of people, science probably is inevitable in the multiverse. Your concern seems parochial.
Post by hibbsaBut if the root question is "What if Science was Really Hard to Happen" then the starting point becomes "What if the way Science happened...all it's key traits as they really were....were literally the only way Science could have happened, because the Problems that had to be solved were Really Really Hard."
What? Science is what it is. One can play childish games, I'm sure, and wonder "but what if there was a universe where science was magic and magic was science" and so forth, but that's uninteresting. Science here in our universe is an error correction device which grows knowledge of the physical world. What else could it be, childish linguistic games aside?
Science could have happened in an infinite number of ways...Newton might not have been born, nor Galileo or Socrates, etc, etc. The enlightenment could have happened far sooner, or later, or not at all. None of that was inevitable. Science might have happened in a different way. But given our brains, I reckon science is inevitable.
Post by hibbsa...and so on and so on... So you see it's not about 'observatio' or 'empiricism' or anything like that. And yet it is about 'directness' in some sort of way.
Post by Brett HallPost by hibbsaPost by Alan ForresterAlso, Popper's philosophy is not solely a description, it also
prescribes standards for scientists to live up to. Can you improve on
those standards?
These are important questions, hibbsa! You should attempt an answer.
Well Brett, they are important questions but showing that Popper went wrong early on, is actually a pretty big category level answer to those questions.
You still have not done anything, in these last two posts at least, beyond the bare assertion that Popper went wrong. But you do not say where, or how. You provide no explanation. You are not arguing. To just say "Popper was wrong" (which, it seems to me, your most recent postings reduce to) doesn't allow us to make headway. Perhaps you have said something in previous posts - ok then, but I do tend to follow these lists. I probably would not have missed a good challenge to Popperian epistemology. But that aside, each post *should be* stand alone. I shouldn't have to go searching the archives for your argument.
So again, can you provide your argument of where Popper went wrong? What is inadequate about his view of knowledge? Below you make some fitful starts at this, but it lacks the detail of what might be called an "epistemology" as it fails to adequately *explain* why it is that progress occurs. We see objective progress: how do you explain it? Guessing at objective truth and criticising gets us there. And we converge on the truth and people come to understand the same things. As I explain below, your scheme fails to explain these phenomena.
Post by hibbsaPost by Brett HallIncidentally, do you think Popper, and Deutsch explain epistemology as best as it is currently understood? Or do you think there is some better way of understanding the growth of knowledge?
Yes I think they are wrong, but that they also get a lot right. For example I think it is possible to be completey right that, say, Foundationalism is a catastrophic error, and yet have a completely partial and inadequate explanation of the real issue about Foundations. In the same way, I think it's possible to get a lot right about Knowledge and yet for initially pretty subtle omissions be profoundly off base at the same time.
Those are all assertions again. No explanation. Just bare assertions that you think certain things are true and certain things are inadequate...but no explanation of why you think any of it. Not even one "because" after any "I think...".
Post by hibbsaAbout knowledge...I think the right idea...and the right way to express it...would be much more in the vein of scientific conceptualization and expression. And no surprise there, because I happen to think that way of doing things 'evolved' for a reason and that reason involved a major Problem that is and was incredibly hard to solve.
Now there's a "because" but it still doesn't constitute an explanation of your position. What does "scientific conceptualization and expression" mean? That is key...that is what needs explanation. You should elaborate on this so we have something substantive to engage with.
The "way if doing things" you refer to is, I guess you mean, how science is done. I am not sure, because (again) I find it hard to follow you. Science and the way science is done no doubt evolves - intelligently - people choose what works best and test it. Even the methods of science. Exactly as Popper's epistemology predicts. That's not a failing of Popper. That's a success. The way science works is precisely as he describes. And it gets better...in just the way he predicts.
Post by hibbsaSo the upshot is that, first off, the concept of true creation has to be completely dismissed absent an explanation.
Um...? I don't understand. Who is dismissing true creation? If you don't have an explanation, of any type, of "creation" then creation wouldn't exist. What exists is that which features in our best explanations. Creation is real as that is where knowledge comes from. A creative act, then surviving criticism.
I am not sure what "true" as a prefix means here. Is it redundant?
Post by hibbsaAnd that includes as part of the C&R process.
So the best way to understand this in general, is that new knowledge 'creation' comes about as the integration of two (or more) pre-existent knowledge sets, whether implicit or otherwise.
Well...again, that is Popperian. No revelation here. Deutsch explains this in many places in FoR and especially BoI - all knowledge is some adaptation of prior knowledge. Knowledge improves incrementally. So, yes...creation occurs when we change (improve) some already existing knowledge. We don't create ex-nihilio. Although the creative changes we do make to existing knowledge - we cannot yet explain that.
Can you?
Post by hibbsaTry to think of an exception to that.
Why? It's how all knowledge is created. As Popper and Deutsch explain.
Post by hibbsaFor example Criticism itself is intrinsically a goal-oriented procedure. That goal could be good philosophy, but on some given instance it could also be something more mundane like "this guy is stupid I'm not going to bother reading his ideas but he gets on my nerves so I'm going to shut him down'.
That is a related, but nonetheless *different* meaning of the word "criticism" when applied to knowledge claims. Adhominem attacks on a person - like asserting someone is stupid - isn't a criticism in the Popperian sense, to my mind. It's just a useless insult.
Post by hibbsaI mean, we might not think it explicitly, but we all moments like that don't we? Or something similar.
But this is no criticism of criticism.
Post by hibbsaSo that criticism...that we actually make...is a slightly different concept..it's a marriage of those explicit and implicit goals, and lots of other stuff to do with the conditions there and then..and whatever the other party has brought to the table.
The truth is this model, I don't think contradicts C&R at all.
Right. Because from what I can tell, it's not a different model. So, no surprise so far.
Post by hibbsaIt allows for it. But what it also does is imply different lines of consequences, which create different problems, the solutions of which lead to different things.
For example?
Post by hibbsaBut it's inherently something that can be expressed mimimally, probably in a logic or math form with effort.
So do so. But why would that be an improvement to have a symbolic schema? If it can be said at all, it can be said clearly...in English.
Post by hibbsaIt's also something that implies hard, objective-by-design consequences..things that can be said - always - about every act of knowledge growth. Things that have ramifications.
For example, if every piece of knowlege growth (and much else, like I say, criticism) is an integration of two or more knowledge sets, then the first big ramification is that knowledge is never a clean explanation of one thing. The explanation is changed by the other knowledge set. It becomes a mixture result.
Again, this *is* Popperian, not an adaptation of Popper. As genuinely true, deeper explanations are discovered, they can replace multiple less deep explanations. Deeper explanations tend to unify multiple phenomena. So, again, no revelation. You are not adding anything. You are just expressing Popperian epistemology in your own words.
Post by hibbsaWhat that means is, for example, if you allow a large implicit assumption to enter your knowledge creations process, and if it becomes 'the other' knowledge set as you integrate two to create new knowledge, then you will have embedded that assumption deeply into the very fibre of your explanatory world. And that new knowledge becomes important in the creation of yet more, then that original implicit assumption will become yet more embedded. In some cases it will be diluted out, but in others it will keep on growing.
Yep.
Post by hibbsaThe implication, in the end, is that unpicking large influential assumptions gets more and more difficult as new knowledge builds up, and this is a pretty exponential effect in product knowledge creation systems.
Exactly. Deutsch explains this sort of things really well in BoI. It's very hard to know what is obvious (impossible?). We often simply cannot see what is right before our eyes. So...the most simple assumptions we (people) made long ago and which are deep, deep in our collective consciousness or whatever...might be hard to know.
Post by hibbsaThis usually doesn't happen, for example a badly motivated criticism can only impact the whole of knowledge so far as that particular criticism has real enduring influence into that world of knowledge. Mostly, the influence doesn't appear so it works out ok.
Now...there are I believe knock on implications about this, that pose serious questions for the basic idea of C&R.
I've been waiting for this...so...you're going to give me these "serious questions for the basic idea of C&R" now? Great!
Post by hibbsaThere are many other consequences of viewing knowledge this way. The consequences are more powerful and more objective by design, because this model intrinsically kicks out unknowns like 'creativity'. And does so, without actually asserting anything about the world at all. As I say, the model doesn't have to explain real knowledge growth to be 'real'...it only has to be consistent with real knowledge growth. The *consequences* and *results* of working through the problems will decide the question of truth....as they work ever nearer to it, or not.
Wait...not one question! I feel cheated! Come on...where are these serious questions?
Post by hibbsaAs I say, the model doesn't have to explain real knowledge growth to be 'real'...it only has to be consistent with real knowledge growth
That's badly false. An *infinite* number of "models" are consistent with the growth of knowledge. For example: the model that "knowledge is guided by a supernatural intelligence interjecting into the brains of humans" explains the growth if knowledge *here on Earth*. But it is *no explanation*.
Consistent models are an infinite amount less than a dime a dozen.
Models of epistemology must have accompanying explanations to be worth anything. Popper's explains knowledge. So for example, if it really was the case that some super intelligence implanted knowledge into humans, C&R would simply ask "fine, but where did the knowledge in the super intelligence come from?" And again, an infinite number of models would be consistent, but the only explanation is creative conjecture and criticism.
Post by hibbsaThere's another objective-by-design implication by the way..if it is true. If all knowledge is created as the integration of two (or more) knowledge sets, then every time we create knowledge we are implicitly asking this question: "What would it take for these two knowledge sets to be consistent and part of the same thing"?
That's an important understanding, I think. Because, if we are always asking that question, then for the same reason as Popper Deutsch realize regarding the importance of 'making explicit' it becomes important to always make that question explicit as part of a suite of other solutions geared toward controlling what those two knowledge sets actually are.
So it would follow from that, that the most productive scientific threads are linked to how explicitly that question was.
Newton's was "What would it take for [how he saw gravity and motion behave on Earth] and [What he saw in the sky] to be consisten and part of the same thing".
Was this really what he asked? How do you know?
Post by hibbsaTry using that question, and just some realism (another very important but dangerous knowledge set) and Kepler's Laws...another knowledge Newtwon had, and see how far you can go to invent all the laws that Newton did. You, or some others here, will be surprised...it's like butter off a knife.
Not surprised. Look, it's no failing to be accused of not improving on Popper Deutsch. It seems you haven't. But neither have I. I have no seen anyone who has. You're in good company. Keep trying though.
Post by hibbsaSo....as you see....from a different question come different answers...and the measure of which is the right route, is in the results.
Ok...
Well, I've taken a long time to engage with what I could. I hope you can appreciate that for what it is. I'm just not seeing anything new. You seem to be explaining aspects of Popperian epistemology. The flaws you claim there exist in Popper's ideas just are not there. I think your concerns are all answered by Popper and Deutsch in their writings. I must ask...have you read BoI?
Brett
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]