Skip to main content
Log In | Register

TR Memescape


Topic: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science (Read 3307 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • 7,591

  • 45

Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
OK all you people that wanna know my views on Popper ...

I thought I was very clear in my blog article here ... http://truthmatters.info/sir-karl-popper-and-the-demarcation-of-science-falsifiability-predictions-and-retrodictions/

What is unclear?

  • Seven Popes
  • Needs a Life
  • So would the opposite be a good-ger?
  • 942

  • 154

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #1
Mods, close thread please.
You may hear people saying how fast they can make compost -- some say only a few weeks. Stay away from these people as they don't know what they're talking about. --Humanure handbook

  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 6,668

  • 947

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #2
OK all you people that wanna know my views on Popper ...

I thought I was very clear in my blog article here ... http://truthmatters.info/sir-karl-popper-and-the-demarcation-of-science-falsifiability-predictions-and-retrodictions/

What is unclear?

You said you had selected those quotations because you were interested in Popper's definitions of science.  You also said that Popper made two categories of science.  You claimed that AiG's terms "historical" and "operational" science were "concise" versions of these categories.

Please state a) the names you think Popper gave to each of these categories and b) how he defined them.

It shouldn't be hard, as you say that the information is in the quotations you cited.

  • 7,591

  • 45

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #3
Lizzie ...
Quote
You can't, because Popper does NOT define "two categories of science".

Yes he does.  You just don't read carefully.  You need to take my "Hawkins-reading" course.  The following is from my blog ...
Quote
Returning to (1), it does appear from your article (provided its quotation from Colin Patterson's book - which I do not know - is not as misleading as your quotations from my book) that some people think that I have denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as palaeontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth; or to say, the history of literature, or of technology, or of science.

This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character: their hypotheses can in many cases be tested.

It appears as if some people would think that the historical sciences are untestable because they describe unique events. However, the description of unique events can very often be tested by deriving from them testable predictions or retrodictions.

Karl Popper Penn"



  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 6,668

  • 947

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #4
Mods, close thread please.

Or move all relevant posts into this one so that Dave can address them.

  • 7,591

  • 45

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #5
Popper does not write a nice concise paragraph that says "this is operational science" and "that is historical science."  We have to infer that.

  • VoxRat
  • Needs a Life
  • Curmudgeon
  • 3,768

  • 630

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #6
OK all you people that wanna know my views on Popper ...

I thought I was very clear in my blog article here ... http://truthmatters.info/sir-karl-popper-and-the-demarcation-of-science-falsifiability-predictions-and-retrodictions/

What is unclear?
I thought the demolition of your the AiG distortion of Popper that you are parroting  was clearly laid out here.

What was unclear?

  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 6,668

  • 947

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #7
Lizzie ...
Quote
You can't, because Popper does NOT define "two categories of science".

Yes he does.  You just don't read carefully.  You need to take my "Hawkins-reading" course.  The following is from my blog ...
Quote
Returning to (1), it does appear from your article (provided its quotation from Colin Patterson's book - which I do not know - is not as misleading as your quotations from my book) that some people think that I have denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as palaeontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth; or to say, the history of literature, or of technology, or of science.

This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character: their hypotheses can in many cases be tested.

It appears as if some people would think that the historical sciences are untestable because they describe unique events. However, the description of unique events can very often be tested by deriving from them testable predictions or retrodictions.

Karl Popper Penn"

Where, in the passage you have just quoted, does Popper define  "two categories of science"?

  • VoxRat
  • Needs a Life
  • Curmudgeon
  • 3,768

  • 630

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #8
Popper does not write a nice concise paragraph that says "this is operational science" and "that is historical science."  We have to infer that. take AiG's word for that.
fyp

  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 6,668

  • 947

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #9
Popper does not write a nice concise paragraph that says "this is operational science" and "that is historical science."  We have to infer that.

And from which paragraphs do you infer this?


  • 7,591

  • 45

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #10
It's quite easy to infer because it's obvious he thought Darwinism to be in a different category than "empirical science" which could be "tested by experience."  But it appears that he eventually noticed that he wasn't getting invited to parties anymore so he came up with this "historical science" category and put Darwinism in that box to make the Darwinists happy I suppose.

  • 7,591

  • 45

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #11
Popper does not write a nice concise paragraph that says "this is operational science" and "that is historical science."  We have to infer that.

And from which paragraphs do you infer this?


It's in giant bold print above.

  • VoxRat
  • Needs a Life
  • Curmudgeon
  • 3,768

  • 630

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #12
Again - from Hawkins extended faceplant on this subject on the Old TR:

Quote from: Faid;2624169
Anyway:
Quote from: Popper, The Poverty of Historicism, pages 132-133
The thesis of the unity of the scientific method, whose application to theoretical sciences I have just been defending, can be extended, with certain limitations, even to the field of historical sciences. And this can be done without giving up the fundamental distinction between theoretical and historical sciences- for example, between sociology or economic theory or political theory on the one hand, and social, economical and political history on the other- a distinction which has been so often and emphatically reaffirmed by the best historians. It is the distinction between the interest in universal laws and the interest in particular facts. I wish to defend the view, so often attacked as old-fashioned by historicists, that history is characterized by its interest in actual, singular, or specific events, rather than in laws or generalizations. [emphasis in original]

This view is perfectly compatible with the analysis of scientific method, and especially of causal explanation given in the preceding section. The situation is simply this: while the theoretical sciences are mainly interested in finding and testing universal laws, the historical sciences take all kinds of universal laws for granted and are mainly interested in finding and testing singular statements.
Quote from: Popper, again
some people think that I have denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as palaeontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth; or to say, the history of literature, or of technology, or of science.
This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character: their hypotheses can in many cases be tested.
It appears as if some people would think that the historical sciences are untestable because they describe unique events. However, the description of unique events can very often be tested by deriving from them testable predictions or retrodictions.

Quote from: Cleland
This  paper  explains  why  historical  science  is  not  inferior  to  experimental  science  when  it  comes  to  testing  hypotheses.  First,  objections  such  as  Gee's  are  based  upon  common  misconceptions  about experimental  practice  and  scientific  methodology  in  general.  Second, the differences in methodology that actually do exist between historical and  experimental  science  are  founded  upon  a  remarkably  pervasive feature of nature: a causal asymmetry between present and past events, on  the  one  hand,  and  present  and  future  events,  on  the  other. Insofar as each practice is tailored to exploit the information that nature puts at its disposal for evaluating hypotheses, and the character of that information differs, neither practice can be held up as more objective or rational than the other.
Quote from: Cleland, again
When  it  comes  to  testing  hypotheses,  historical  science  is  not inferior  to  classical  experimental  science.  Traditional  accounts  of  the scientific method cannot be used to support the superiority of experimental work. Furthermore, the differences in methodology that actually do  exist  between  historical  and  experimental  science are keyed to an objective  and  pervasive  feature  of  nature,  the  asymmetry  of  overdetermination.  Insofar  as  each  practice selectively exploits the differing information  that  nature  puts  at  its  disposal,  there  are  no  grounds  for claiming that the  hypotheses of one are more securely established by evidence than are those of the other.

Quote from: Hartnett
In terms of what science is, cosmology is not science. And that is very important to understand. It is not repeatable operational science but more like a forensic science, an historical science, which is much weaker and does not work like normal operational science with hypothesis, prediction and test/refutation.


One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong.
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?

  • VoxRat
  • Needs a Life
  • Curmudgeon
  • 3,768

  • 630

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #13
It's quite easy to infer because it's obvious he thought Darwinism to be in a different category than "empirical science" which could be "tested by experience."  But it appears that he eventually noticed that he wasn't getting invited to parties anymore so he came up with this "historical science" category and put Darwinism in that box to make the Darwinists happy I suppose.
Once again the raging narcissist projects his lack of integrity onto others.

No, Hawkins. That is not how "it appears" when not looking through AiG colored glasses; you "suppose" wrong.

  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 6,668

  • 947

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #14
Popper does not write a nice concise paragraph that says "this is operational science" and "that is historical science."  We have to infer that.

And from which paragraphs do you infer this?


It's in giant bold print above.

I see where he uses the term "historical science".  I do not see where he defines it.  Nor where he defines what you are calling "operational science".

I also note, as I said in the other thread, that you seem to think in interchangeable term for "historical sciences" is Popper's "metaphysical research programmes".

Do you think this?

  • Seven Popes
  • Needs a Life
  • So would the opposite be a good-ger?
  • 942

  • 154

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #15
Dave, did you read Popper's work, or just a synopsis or two on the web?  Because you don't understand Popper.  You misunderstand him like AIG, which makes me mighty suspicious...
You may hear people saying how fast they can make compost -- some say only a few weeks. Stay away from these people as they don't know what they're talking about. --Humanure handbook

  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 6,668

  • 947

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #16
It's quite easy to infer because it's obvious he thought Darwinism to be in a different category than "empirical science" which could be "tested by experience."  But it appears that he eventually noticed that he wasn't getting invited to parties anymore so he came up with this "historical science" category and put Darwinism in that box to make the Darwinists happy I suppose.

No, it is not obvious at all. What is obvious is that he earlier thought that Darwinism came under the category of "metaphysical research programme" rather than "historical science". 

You goofed.  You thought that Popper thought that "historical science" was different from "empirical science".  He didn't.  He distinguished between science and metaphysics.

He also distinguished between were two kinds of STATEMENTS: natural laws and singular statements.  You actually quote him on that in your quoted passages.  He says that BOTH are required to make a causal deduction about a past event.

And elsewhere he says that "theoretical" science focusses on the natural laws, whereas "historical" science takes the natural laws for granted, and focuses on the "singular statements" i.e. on whether the initial conditions for the event in question were or were not present.

Both, for Popper, are SCIENCE. 

You misunderstood.

  • 7,591

  • 45

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #17
Popper does not write a nice concise paragraph that says "this is operational science" and "that is historical science."  We have to infer that.

And from which paragraphs do you infer this?


It's in giant bold print above.

I see where he uses the term "historical science".  I do not see where he defines it.  Nor where he defines what you are calling "operational science".

I also note, as I said in the other thread, that you seem to think in interchangeable term for "historical sciences" is Popper's "metaphysical research programmes".

Do you think this?
OK I said this already.  I'll say it again.  Are you reading carefully this time?

POPPER DOES NOT SAY "THIS IS OPERATIONAL SCIENCE" AND "THAT IS HISTORICAL SCIENCE."

We have to INFER that.

Do you know what INFER means?

  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 6,668

  • 947

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #18
Here is my earlier post about your blog piece and its mangling of Popper:

Here is Dave's conclusion:

Quote from: Dave Hawkins
WHAT IS THE MEANING OF ALL THIS?
Very simply that the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Special Creation are BOTH classified as historical sciences. You could also classify both of them as 'metaphysical research programmes' as Popper did. Why do we care about all this? For several reasons.

1) Darwinists misuse the terms 'predictions' and 'falsifiability' (see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/) and cite Popper as an authority on what science is and what it is not, thus giving the impression that Evolutionary Biology has the same scientific character as the type of 'law-based' science that Popper described. But this is misleading. Evolutionary Biology was only admitted as scientific by Popper as a 'historical' science and as you can see from above, the predictions used to test it are quite different from those used in law-based science.

2) Darwinists try to elevate their theory above the Theory of Special Creation (TSC), saying that their theory is scientific and TSC is not. They have managed to convince judges and school boards of this in America and as a result, the courts view any mention of Intelligent Design in the classroom as 'religious' and therefore prohibited. This is a travesty.


Popper, in the first set of quotations Dave cites, distinguishes between two kinds of statements: "universal laws" and "singular statements" as components of a causal explanation of a past event.

He does not say they are two different kinds of science.  He does say (elsewhere) that __________ science is mainly concerned with the first kind of statement, while "historical science" takes the first kind for granted, and focuses on establishing the second.

Popper also distinguishes between science (falsifiable proposals) and metaphysics (which might guide a research programme but does not consist of falsifiable proposals). 

He does NOT equate "historical sciences" with "metaphysical research programmes" as Dave claims.  In fact, Popper does not admit "metaphysical research programmes" as being "science" at all.  That's why he calls it "metaphysics".  So if he did equate the two, it would be a contradiction in terms.

Dave goofed.

  • Seven Popes
  • Needs a Life
  • So would the opposite be a good-ger?
  • 942

  • 154

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #19
Popper does not write a nice concise paragraph that says "this is operational science" and "that is historical science."  We have to infer that.

And from which paragraphs do you infer this?


It's in giant bold print above.

I see where he uses the term "historical science".  I do not see where he defines it.  Nor where he defines what you are calling "operational science".

I also note, as I said in the other thread, that you seem to think in interchangeable term for "historical sciences" is Popper's "metaphysical research programmes".

Do you think this?
OK I said this already.  I'll say it again.  Are you reading carefully this time?

POPPER DOES NOT SAY "THIS IS OPERATIONAL SCIENCE" AND "THAT IS HISTORICAL SCIENCE."

We have to INFER that.

Do you know what INFER means?
Knowing your problems with definitions, why don't you tell us first?
You may hear people saying how fast they can make compost -- some say only a few weeks. Stay away from these people as they don't know what they're talking about. --Humanure handbook

  • 7,591

  • 45

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #20
Quote
You goofed.  You thought that Popper thought that "historical science" was different from "empirical science".
Not "emprical."  "Operational"

And no, I don't think I goofed.  It DOES appear to me that he has a distinction in mind.

But let me ask you ... do YOU think there is a distinction?

  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 6,668

  • 947

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #21
Popper does not write a nice concise paragraph that says "this is operational science" and "that is historical science."  We have to infer that.

And from which paragraphs do you infer this?


It's in giant bold print above.

I see where he uses the term "historical science".  I do not see where he defines it.  Nor where he defines what you are calling "operational science".

I also note, as I said in the other thread, that you seem to think in interchangeable term for "historical sciences" is Popper's "metaphysical research programmes".

Do you think this?
OK I said this already.  I'll say it again.  Are you reading carefully this time?

POPPER DOES NOT SAY "THIS IS OPERATIONAL SCIENCE" AND "THAT IS HISTORICAL SCIENCE."

We have to INFER that.



Yes.  Do you know what "from which paragraph" means?

Popper does not write a nice concise paragraph that says "this is operational science" and "that is historical science."  We have to infer that.

And from which paragraphs do you infer this?

  • 7,591

  • 45

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #22
Lizzie
Quote
He does NOT equate "historical sciences" with "metaphysical research programmes" as Dave claims.
That was not my claim. 

Lizzie, you are a really really poor reader.  Or you are very dishonest.

  • 7,591

  • 45

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #23
STOP LYING ABOUT ME, LIZZIE (OR MISREPRESENTING ME)

  • 7,591

  • 45

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #24
If you people are representative of all scientists and how they operate, then it's no wonder our world is in deep shit.