Skip to main content
Log In | Register

TR Memescape


Topic: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science (Read 3701 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • 9,722

  • 59

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #25
You people (with PhD's) cannot even READ!!!!  FFS

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

  • 154

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #26
STOP LYING ABOUT ME, LIZZIE (OR MISREPRESENTING ME)
Butthurt Mode: Engaged
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

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

  • 154

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #27
You people (with PhD's) cannot even READ!!!!  FFS
Predictably enough, when an accusation is on the mark, Dave is compelled to break out the IKYABWAI.
It's like a kneejerk reaction, a tell.
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

  • 9,722

  • 59

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #28
If anyone wants more clarity on this topic[1] please refer to this paper by Carl Cleland who makes it very clear ... [/color]
Quote
This paper explains why historical science is not inferior to experimental science when it comes to testing hypotheses.[/color] http://www.bu.edu/hps-scied/files/2012/11/Cleland-HPS-Historical-science-experimental-science-and-the-scientific-method.pdf
Cleland clearly acknowledges the different character of the two types of science - as AiG does also (and the goofballs here laugh at AiG for doing so).  Cleland's purpose is simply to try to say that "historical science" is just as scientific as "experimental science."
probably few here do since it seems that most of you here actually enjoy squid ink
  • Last Edit: December 23, 2016, 05:21:57 AM by Dave Hawkins

  • 9,722

  • 59

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #29
Everyone has suddenly gone silent (except for the village idiot) ... Gee I wonder why?

  • 9,722

  • 59

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #30
Carl Cleland continues ...
Quote
In this light, let us turn to the reputedly problematic differences
between historical and experimental science. Historical scientists are
just as captivated by falsificationism as experimental scientists;

http://www.bu.edu/hps-scied/files/2012/11/Cleland-HPS-Historical-science-experimental-science-and-the-scientific-method.pdf

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

  • 154

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #31
Shifting to Cleland...
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

  • 9,722

  • 59

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #32
Shifting to Cleland...
And AiG ... who, like me, read Popper correctly.

  • 9,722

  • 59

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #33
7P I know you desperately want some attention ... may I suggest that you invent widgets that could be useful to me in my work and post diagrams of them?  You are good at that!

  • VoxRat
  • Needs a Life
  • wtactualf
  • 5,355

  • 1027

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #34
Lizzie
Quote
He does NOT equate "historical sciences" with "metaphysical research programmes" as Dave claims.
That was not my claim. 

Yes. It was your claim:

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.
What was that "different category than "empirical science" " that Popper originally put "Darwinism" in?
That's right!  A "metaphysical research programme".
And here you are very clearly claiming that he's just renaming that category "to make the Darwinists happy I suppose" .
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • VoxRat
  • Needs a Life
  • wtactualf
  • 5,355

  • 1027

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #35
Shifting to Cleland...
And AiG ... who, like me, read Popper correctly.
Raging narcissists always assume they get to grade their own papers.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Wally
  • Jr. Member
  • 79

  • 40

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #36
STOP LYING ABOUT ME, LIZZIE (OR MISREPRESENTING ME)

She's not lying, it's something she inferred.

  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 7,595

  • 1173

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #37
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.

Well you did.  You and AiG, try to distinguish between "historical" and "operational" science.

You try to map Popper's use of the term "historical sciences" on to his term "metaphysical research programmes".  And you seem to want to map Popper's term "theoretical science" on to AiG's term "operational science".

This is clearly wrong, because for Popper, metaphysics is NOT science.  So "historical sciences" CANNOT mean, for Popper "metaphysical research programmes".

For Popper, "historical science" and "theoretical science" were both science - and both empirical i.e. tested against data. 

Popper did not think that "Evolutionary Biology was only admitted as scientific by Popper as a 'historical' science". There is no "only" in Popper's thinking.  For Popper, as long as evolutionary theory includes historical science it is science, and not metaphysics


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

I buy Popper's distinction - that "theoretical" science is about establishing universal laws, whereas "historical science" is more about establishing whether the initial conditions for an specific event were such that those universal laws could explain the event.

But neither are would be "metaphysics".  Popper, rightly, I think, characterised the original theory as a "metaphysical research programme".  Quite a lot of science starts off that way - and isn't, at that stage, science. And most theories are not falsifiable per se.  However, a good theoretical model will generate testable hypotheses.  Which is what evolutionary has done.

Those will include both theoretical hypotheses, e.g. "natural selection will produce adaptation", and specific historical hypotheses e.g. "this feature of this organism was an adaption".  Both are testable, both are "Popper science".

You cite in your piece about quotemines, Ehler and Birch warning (in 1967) that the theory of evolution was in danger of becoming unfalsiable.  They had a good point.  Too many "historical" hypotheses were being advanced with no means of subjecting them to any falsifiability test.  But things have moved on since then.  We now have ways of testing both theoretical hypotheses and  historical hypotheses (i.e. general "laws" e.g. drift, natural selection) and specific hypotheses about specific organisms and their evolutionary descent.

But the bottom line is: you are simply wrong in mapping Popper's "historical sciences" on to his "metaphysical research programmes" and demoting them to an "only" status.  For Popper, historical sciences were science, period, because they produce testable hypotheses.

  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 7,595

  • 1173

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #38
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.


You wrote:

Quote
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.

If you did not mean that "historical sciences" could not also be "metaphysical research programmes" what DID you mean?

Popper makes it perfectly clear that metaphysics and science are DIFFERENT.  To be science, rather than metaphysics, hypotheses must be FALSIFIABLE.


  • 9,722

  • 59

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #39
 Lizzie... Do you now understand that there are others who acknowledge a distinction between historical and operational/experimental science? Others besides AIG? Like Cleland for example?

  • 9,722

  • 59

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #40
 He wrote a whole paper on it FFS.

  • VoxRat
  • Needs a Life
  • wtactualf
  • 5,355

  • 1027

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #41
Quote
You goofed.  You thought that Popper thought that "historical science" was different from "empirical science".
Not "emprical."  "Operational"
Where does Popper distinguish between "historical science" and "operational science"?
Quote
And no, I don't think I goofed.  It DOES appear to me that he has a distinction in mind.
Where, in his writing, does it appear he has a distinction in mind?
Quote
But let me ask you ... do YOU think there is a distinction?
No.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • 9,722

  • 59

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #42
Lizzie... Do you now understand that there are others who acknowledge a distinction between historical and operational/experimental science? Others besides AIG? Like Cleland for example?
in other words... AIG was correct in their choice of terms. And so was I.

 Which means... You goofed.

 Which is OK. Everyone goofs. But it would be nice if you would quit saying "Dave sucks at science" when I constantly catch you goofing like this.

  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 7,595

  • 1173

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #43
If anyone wants more clarity on this topic[1] please refer to this paper by Carl Cleland who makes it very clear ...
Quote
This paper explains why historical science is not inferior to experimental science when it comes to testing hypotheses. http://www.bu.edu/hps-scied/files/2012/11/Cleland-HPS-Historical-science-experimental-science-and-the-scientific-method.pdf
Cleland clearly acknowledges the different character of the two types of science - as AiG does also (and the goofballs here laugh at AiG for doing so).  Cleland's purpose is simply to try to say that "historical science" is just as scientific as "experimental science."

Yes, and it is.  And NEITHER are metaphysics, or "metaphysical research programmes".  Moreover, as you point out here, there is no ranking of the too.  So your characterisation of Popper as saying that evolution was "only" a historical science.

Popper did not rank the two kinds of enquiry.  He distinguished them being focussed on different KINDS of statements ("universal laws" vs "singular statements").

Here is the context of that claim of yours:

Quote from: Dave Hawkins
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.

Note that you also, in this paragraph, make exactly the error I am saying you are making.  You imply that it is a "misuse" of the terms "predictions" and "falsifiability" to apply them to "historical" science rather than what you here call "law-based science".

But it is not.  For Popper, the falsifiability criterion applies to both.  It's what makes them both science.  Not metaphysics.
probably few here do since it seems that most of you here actually enjoy squid ink

  • VoxRat
  • Needs a Life
  • wtactualf
  • 5,355

  • 1027

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #44
He wrote a whole paper on it FFS.
Lizzie... Do you now understand that there are others who acknowledge a distinction between historical and operational/experimental science? Others besides AIG? Like Cleland for example?
Cleland makes a distinction between "historical" and "experimental" sciences.
But this discussion is not about Cleland.
It's about Popper.
Cleland's distinction is not  - as you mistakenly infer - an exegesis of Popper.
It's her own distinction.

And AiG is a joke.
No serious scientist - or philosopher of science - cares what AiG thinks, except for the lols.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 7,595

  • 1173

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #45
Lizzie... Do you now understand that there are others who acknowledge a distinction between historical and operational/experimental science? Others besides AIG? Like Cleland for example?
in other words... AIG was correct in their choice of terms. And so was I.

 Which means... You goofed.

Um no.  YOU appear to equating "historical sciences" with what Popper called "metaphysical research programmes".  And you also imply that applying the terms "falsifiability" and "prediction" to "historical science" is a "misuse" by "Darwinists".

This is false.  It is a goof.  You misunderstood Popper.  Your quotations from Popper do NOT provide separate definitions of "historical science" and "law-like" or "operational" or "natural law" or "theoretical" science.  For Popper they are ALL science, ONLY if they involve falsifiable hypotheses.

 Which is OK. Everyone goofs. But it would be nice if you would quit saying "Dave sucks at science" when I constantly catch you goofing like this.

But you didn't.  You are still misunderstanding Popper.

I am not saying there aren't different kinds of enquiry WITHIN science.  Nor is Popper.  But what you and AiG are trying to do is somehow to equate "historical science" with a kind of science outside Popper's demarcation line - "metaphysical research programme".

This is wrong.  Popper's demarcation is dead simple: is the hypothesis being tested falsifiable or not?  And this can be applied to both historical and theoretical hypotheses equally.  There is no ranking.



  • VoxRat
  • Needs a Life
  • wtactualf
  • 5,355

  • 1027

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #46
He wrote a whole paper on it FFS.
She.
She wrote a whole paper on it.
Obviously you haven't read it.

And so?
What if she did?

:dunno:
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • VoxRat
  • Needs a Life
  • wtactualf
  • 5,355

  • 1027

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #47
Lizzie... Do you now understand that there are others who acknowledge a distinction between historical and operational/experimental science? Others besides AIG? Like Cleland for example?
in other words... AIG was correct in their choice of terms. And so was I.
That's a complete non sequitur. The fact that someone other than Popper made a distinction that Popper did not make, makes AiG (and you, in parroting AiG) correct in making another distinction that Popper also did not make?

Quote
Which means... You goofed.
:no:

 
Quote
Which is OK. Everyone goofs. But it would be nice if you would quit saying "Dave sucks at science" when I constantly catch you goofing like this.
:rofl:   No, dave. You're just further demonstrating how thoroughly you do suck at science.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • 9,722

  • 59

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #48
Lizzie... Do you now understand that there are others who acknowledge a distinction between historical and operational/experimental science? Others besides AIG? Like Cleland for example?
in other words... AIG was correct in their choice of terms. And so was I.

 Which means... You goofed.

Um no.  YOU appear to equating "historical sciences" with what Popper called "metaphysical research programmes".  And you also imply that applying the terms "falsifiability" and "prediction" to "historical science" is a "misuse" by "Darwinists".

This is false.  It is a goof.  You misunderstood Popper.  Your quotations from Popper do NOT provide separate definitions of "historical science" and "law-like" or "operational" or "natural law" or "theoretical" science.  For Popper they are ALL science, ONLY if they involve falsifiable hypotheses.

 Which is OK. Everyone goofs. But it would be nice if you would quit saying "Dave sucks at science" when I constantly catch you goofing like this.

But you didn't.  You are still misunderstanding Popper.

I am not saying there aren't different kinds of enquiry WITHIN science.  Nor is Popper.  But what you and AiG are trying to do is somehow to equate "historical science" with a kind of science outside Popper's demarcation line - "metaphysical research programme".

This is wrong.  Popper's demarcation is dead simple: is the hypothesis being tested falsifiable or not?  And this can be applied to both historical and theoretical hypotheses equally.  There is no ranking.



no I'm not.

 You still cannot even read for comprehension.

 It's astounding.

  • 9,722

  • 59

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #49
He wrote a whole paper on it FFS.
She.
She wrote a whole paper on it.
Obviously you haven't read it.

And so?
What if she did?

:dunno:
that means that AIG and I were not the only ones that inferred a clear distinction between historical science and experimental or operational science.