Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: OBAMA!  :whyyou:

Topic: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science (Read 3847 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #50
 See Lizzie, the problem is that you don't read carefully.

 If you would read my blog article for comprehension you would see that my purpose is to place creation science and Darwinism in the same category.  Which popper earlier labeled as metaphysical research programs, but later admitted them into the realm of "historical science."

 But you refuse to learn to read for comprehension.

 So you'll continue to stumble around in the dark all the while thinking that you are the good scientist and I'm the sucky scientist.

  • Pingu
Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #51
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?

Yes, there is a distinction.  There is also a distinction between "observational" and "experimental" science.  There are lots of kinds of scientific enquiry.

But POPPER'S distinction between "science" and "metaphysics" was NOT the distinction between "law-like" science and "historical science".  Nor was it a distinction between "operational" (whatever the fuck that means) science and "historical" science.

AiG is trying to subtly imply, and you not so subtly, that somehow evolutionary science is "only" a "historical science" and that somehow this moves it outside the criterion of "falsifiability".

This is simply wrong.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #52
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.
No it doesn't. Unless you equate "experimental science" with "operational science".
But so what?  :dunno:
Anyone can divide science (or philosophy, or mathematics) into whatever categories he or she chooses, to make whatever point he/she chooses to make. In this case, Cleland makes the distinction, but concludes that both are perfectly valid.

What's YOUR point in making the distinction YOU make?  :dunno:
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #53
See Lizzie, the problem is that you don't read carefully.

 If you would read my blog article for comprehension you would see that my purpose is to place creation science and Darwinism in the same category.  Which popper earlier labeled as metaphysical research programs, but later admitted them into the realm of "historical science."

 But you refuse to learn to read for comprehension.

 So you'll continue to stumble around in the dark all the while thinking that you are the good scientist and I'm the sucky scientist.

If you had read Popper for comprehension why would you write:

Quote
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.

What did you mean if you did not mean that somehow Popper thought that the terms "prediction" and "falsifiability" only applied to "the type of 'law-based' science that Popper described"?

I accept that you may not have meant what it appeared to me you meant.  But if it didn't, what the fuck did you mean?


Quote from: Popper in "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", 1977
I mention this problem [The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology] because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as "almost tautological", and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research program. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems.

I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research program. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Pingu
Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #54
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.

And what is that distinction?  In your own words?
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #55
See Lizzie, the problem is that you don't read carefully.
no u.

That's how you got Cleland's name (and gender) wrong, and how you concluded that the distinction she makes is derived from a "correct" reading of Popper:

Shifting to Cleland...
And AiG ... who, like me, read Popper correctly.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #56
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?

Yes, there is a distinction.  There is also a distinction between "observational" and "experimental" science.  There are lots of kinds of scientific enquiry.

But POPPER'S distinction between "science" and "metaphysics" was NOT the distinction between "law-like" science and "historical science".  Nor was it a distinction between "operational" (whatever the fuck that means) science and "historical" science.

AiG is trying to subtly imply, and you not so subtly, that somehow evolutionary science is "only" a "historical science" and that somehow this moves it outside the criterion of "falsifiability".

This is simply wrong.
no.

 Again, reading for comprehension.

 I and AIG are simply observing that creationism and Darwinism are in the same category for the purposes of demarcation of science.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #57
I and AIG are simply observing that creationism and Darwinism are in the same category for the purposes of demarcation of science.
No, you're not observing that.
You are asserting that.
Despite the fact that they are very clearly NOT in the same category for the purposes of demarcation of science.
Namely: that "Darwinism" (at least what Popper was talking about when he used that term*) generates testable hypotheses, whereas creationism does  not.

Case in point: Kälksjön varves.**

* which, incidentally, is very different from how YOU use the term.
**  assuming here YOUR use of the term "darwinism" - which seems to include all science that contradicts YEC
  • Last Edit: December 23, 2016, 07:00:52 AM by VoxRat
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #58
I should say that I do agree with Cleland that falsification is not generally how scientists proceed.

The most usual procedure is to try to falsify a null hypothesis, and even that is fraught with incoherence.

Where I think Popper was absolutely right is that the test of whether a proposition is scientific is: "what evidence would falsify this proposition?"

By that criterion "God did it" is fundamentally unscientific.  There is no evidence that could possibly falsify it.

Same with "God made the world 6,000 years ago by miraculous means".

Whereas the proposition that living things descended from a common ancestor with COULD be falsified, at least probabilistically, by the finding of an unambigous rabbit fossil in unambiguously pre-Cambrian rock.

But that isn't in fact usually how we test scientific hypotheses.  What we do is to test positive predictions: IF the first tetrapods emerged from fish-like ancestors about 375 million years ago THEN we might expect to find fossils of such animals in shoreline deposits from that time.  So if we travel to a place where that kind of rock is near the surface of the earth today, we should find some.

But it wasn't a falsification test - failure to find the fossils would not have meant that the hypothesis was wrong. 

Falsifying EVIDENCE would have been the finding of rabbit fossils, or even dinosaur fossils, in that rock.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Pingu
Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #59
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?

Yes, there is a distinction.  There is also a distinction between "observational" and "experimental" science.  There are lots of kinds of scientific enquiry.

But POPPER'S distinction between "science" and "metaphysics" was NOT the distinction between "law-like" science and "historical science".  Nor was it a distinction between "operational" (whatever the fuck that means) science and "historical" science.

AiG is trying to subtly imply, and you not so subtly, that somehow evolutionary science is "only" a "historical science" and that somehow this moves it outside the criterion of "falsifiability".

This is simply wrong.
no.

 Again, reading for comprehension.

 I and AIG are simply observing that creationism and Darwinism are in the same category for the purposes of demarcation of science.

So why did you say:

Quote
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.

Creationism and Darwinism are NOT "in the same category for the purposes of demarcation of science" according to Popper's criterion for the demarcation of science.  Not unless you can produce a falsifiable hypothesis for creationism. Popper's criterion ("for the purposes of demarcation of science") is NOT whether or not a proposition is "historical", as opposed to "law-based".  It is whether or not it is falsifiable.


I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Pingu
Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #60
Dave. I've cut and pasted these words of Popper's from your own blog, using your own bolding:

Quote from: Popper, quoted by Dave
These considerations suggest that not the verifiability but the falsifiability of a system is to be taken as a criterion of demarcation.

That demarcation is NOT the demarcation between "historical" and "law-based" science.  It's the demarcation between science and non-science.

I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #61
I should say that I do agree with Cleland that falsification is not generally how scientists proceed.

The most usual procedure is to try to falsify a null hypothesis, and even that is fraught with incoherence.

Where I think Popper was absolutely right is that the test of whether a proposition is scientific is: "what evidence would falsify this proposition?"

By that criterion "God did it" is fundamentally unscientific.  There is no evidence that could possibly falsify it.

Same with "God made the world 6,000 years ago by miraculous means".

Whereas the proposition that living things descended from a common ancestor with COULD be falsified, at least probabilistically, by the finding of an unambigous rabbit fossil in unambiguously pre-Cambrian rock.

But that isn't in fact usually how we test scientific hypotheses.  What we do is to test positive predictions: IF the first tetrapods emerged from fish-like ancestors about 375 million years ago THEN we might expect to find fossils of such animals in shoreline deposits from that time.  So if we travel to a place where that kind of rock is near the surface of the earth today, we should find some.

But it wasn't a falsification test - failure to find the fossils would not have meant that the hypothesis was wrong. 

Falsifying EVIDENCE would have been the finding of rabbit fossils, or even dinosaur fossils, in that rock.
Horseshit.

Here you go trying to elevate Darwinism above Creationism from a demarcation standpoint.  Doesn't work.

Even some of your own Darwin Club members understand this ... how may times have I posted this quote?  A hundred?  You should know it by now ...

Quote
Stanford Professor Paul Ehrlich says that the Theory of Evolution is "outside empirical science."
Ehrlich, Paul and L.C. Birch (1967), "Evolutionary History and Population Biology," Nature, 214:349-352, April 22, p. 352
Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus "outside empirical science" but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets.

  • Pingu
Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #62
Dave: first, read my whole post.

Second: address the questions I have asked you.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #63
True, Popper did not place Darwinism and Creationsim in the same category of science.  To my knowledge he didn't say ANYTHING about Creationsim.  Only Darwnism.

But if one READS POPPER (and people like Cleland) FOR COMPREHENSION ... one realizes that they are, in fact, in the same category, according to their descriptions of what science is and what it is not.

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #64
Why are we wasting time on this stupid shit anyway?

I'm interested in Stefansson and whale blubber.  See ya over at the other thread.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #65
If you would read my blog article for comprehension you would see that my purpose is to place creation science and Darwinism in the same category.  Which popper earlier labeled as metaphysical research programs, but later admitted them into the realm of "historical science."

 But you refuse to learn to read for comprehension.
Reading for comprehension here, can anyone spot Hawkins's lie ?

Can anyone not?
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #66
True, Popper did not place Darwinism and Creationsim in the same category of science.  To my knowledge he didn't say ANYTHING about Creationsim.  Only Darwnism.

But if one READS POPPER (and people like Cleland) FOR COMPREHENSION ... one realizes that they are, in fact, in the same category, according to their descriptions of what science is and what it is not.
Nope.
Creationism does not generate falsifiable hypotheses.
What you call "Darwinism" does.
It's that simple.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #67
Here you go trying to elevate Darwinism above Creationism from a demarcation standpoint.  Doesn't work.
Yeah.
It does.
Creationism does not generate falsifiable hypotheses.
What you call "Darwinism" does.
It's that simple.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #68
True, Popper did not place Darwinism and Creationsim in the same category of science.  To my knowledge he didn't say ANYTHING about Creationsim.  Only Darwnism.

No, he did not.

And nor did his demarcation on the criterion of falsifiability separate "historical" from "law-based" science as you imply when you accuse "Darwinists" of "misuse" of the terms "falsifiability" and "prediction".

Popper counted both "historical" and "law-based" science as science - i.e. on the "falsifiable" side of his demarcation line.

You still have this wrong.

But if one READS POPPER (and people like Cleland) FOR COMPREHENSION ... one realizes that they are, in fact, in the same category, according to their descriptions of what science is and what it is not.

Certainly historical and "law-based" (your term) hypotheses are both on the science side of Popper's demarcation line.  His demarcation criterion does NOT distinguish them, as your blog post implies when you say:

Quote
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.


As you now agree, Popper applied the falsification criterion to both historical and "law-based" science.

He also agreed that evolutionary hypotheses could be falsifiable. Which indeed they are.

Now comes a different issue:

Is creationism falsifiable?  Yes, some creationist hypotheses are falsifiable. Some are not.  Miraculous hypotheses are not.  Historical hypotheses, such as "there was a global flood 4,000 years ago" are.


I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #69
Why are we wasting time on this stupid shit anyway?

Why did you start the thread?  :dunno:
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #70
Here you go trying to elevate Darwinism above Creationism from a demarcation standpoint.  Doesn't work.
Yeah.
It does.
Creationism does not generate falsifiable hypotheses.

Actually it does.  But they were falsified over a century ago.  So creationists substituted unfalsfiable ones instead.

What you call "Darwinism" does.
It's that simple.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Pingu
Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #71
Why are we wasting time on this stupid shit anyway?

Because you keep bringing up Popper, invoking him to support your claim that you do not suck at science, and also claimed you had studied him intensively and had written a blog piece about his ideas.  Turned out (as we already knew) that you haven't a clue about Popper, and that your blog piece demonstrated this.

I'm interested in Stefansson and whale blubber.  See ya over at the other thread.

ETA: badger hidden pending an answer to my question about why Dave thinks that Darwinists "misuse" the terms "falsification" and "prediction".
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
  • Last Edit: December 23, 2016, 07:27:47 AM by Pingu
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #72
Why are we wasting time on this stupid shit anyway?

Why did you start the thread?  :dunno:
Because you guys were shitting up my other thread and I'm a nice guy and wanted to accommodate you.  You are not very bright, are you?

Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #73
Quote
Because you keep bringing up Popper, invoking him to support your claim that you do not suck at science, and also claimed you had studied him intensively and had written a blog piece about his ideas.  Turned out (as we already knew) that you haven't a clue about Popper, and that your blog piece demonstrated this.
No.  I understand Popper just fine and my blog article is clear.

You goofed.

(And it's more clear now because I added the link to the Cleland paper)

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Karl Popper and the Demarcation of Science
Reply #74
Is creationism falsifiable?  Yes, some creationist hypotheses are falsifiable. Some are not.  Miraculous hypotheses are not.  Historical hypotheses, such as "there was a global flood 4,000 years ago" are.
Though not as far as Hawkins (or other dogmatic YECs are concerned.
Ask yourself*: what evidence would he accept as falsifying "there was a global flood 4,000 years ago" ?

* since you'll never get a straight answer from Hawkins - though the silence pretty much constitutes an answer
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins