Tal's epistemology (and DCP's)

[_A Light in the Darkness]

That's where the quotemining of Popper is coming from.

I don't know what you mean by that (?).

I mean pulling short Popper quotes rend from their context in a way that can confuse the reader without an appropriate background as to what, exactly, Popper is talking about to more easily mock him. The style seems to follow Stove from what I've read.

By the way, perhaps a new low for you in non-logic is your beyond lame insinuation, or whatever it is, based on Stove's piece on women.

Your anti-feminist views parallel nicely with those of Stove. Granted, you haven't said anything as extreme, though you've walked on the borders of it and engaged in just as shoddy reasoning. Given that you recommended him here, it wasn't unreasonable to speculate that perhaps he is an influence in that domain as well. I would've wrote the same paranthetical if you were arguing something similar to one of his other dubious views (and boy howdy does he have a lot of them) in another thread.

when you yourself won't even produce one single quote for a very nasty, personally insulting, characterization of Brooks?

You were making repeated attempts to bait me in the thread, which you had attempted elsewhere prior to that, so I left you be. I'm not interested in those games. But yeah, Brooks, like Stove, is a misogynist.

s, Light - some "guesses" were to be "preferred" (Popper's word) on the most specious, and detached-from-reality grounds.

If by "detached-from-reality" you mean "pragamatic" then yeah, that sounds about right. Pragmatic notions of truth aren't prima facie wrong like you seem to regard them. If by "specious" you mean "ultimately not right," then sure. Popper failed in his quest. I don't think there are any Popperians in here and no one is resting anything they say on the ultimate success of Popper, so I don't see why you are laboring the point. If you mean "specious" as in "Popper did not provide any account of progress in knoweledge," then no. Disconfirmation alone is enough to provide progress in knowledge. We are capable of making sense of progression of knowledge with Popper's thoughts even if we aren't able to fully accord his philosophy with the dictates of reason. So when you offer the rhetorical question, "How does this make sense?!" it isn't too much to ask you to think about it a little, especially when others have started to answer the question for you. As Gadiation has pointed out to you, in a friendly way no doubt because you are not a believer, if your criticism is lobbed at those who fail to adequately account for progress in knowledge, then who exactly is left outside of your criticism? Do you think someone has succeeded where Popper has failed?

Why don't you just read "Conjectures and Refutations" yourself and think critically about it? You seem never to have done so...Why should I do all the work? I'd be surprised if you even OWNED a single Karl Popper book

You're blinded by your lack of humility. I can assure you that you are wrong here. This is getting to be an eerie repeat of Guy's lecture on ethics to me by discussing the dichotomy of "formalism" and "utilitarianism." Either you would benefit from reading much more than you have or much less. Hard to say at this point.

[_Ren]

(No, I am not saying there is nothing of value in Popper's thought; here I am just focusing on a few particular problems).

Well, this is good enough for me. I beleive the same. I'd probably not say it quite like that - I'd place the balance a little differently I suspect, but I DO think that some of his statements are clearly problematic.
Some I don't think can be defended. Some I think 'probably' can be taken different ways - at least. And some I defintly think aren't being taken the way they were meant to be taken. (i.e. how he really intended them to be taken).
But considering that I now firmly agree that Popper could have been more careful in his language sometimes, it's understandable that this would be the result.

But I think you've made your case. To the point where everybody get's where your coming from! If you have the 'right' perspective in all this, and we are just too dumb / ignorant / entrenched / unenlightened to 'get it', then at least take comfort in the "knowledge" (baa haa) that you did all a mortal can do to raise conciousness!

In the end, Popper's view is more extreme than mine. And clearly more extreme than yours! So, while I'm sure we disagree on quite a few individual points, I'm not sure were actually 'that' far apart...

The stuff you posted from David Stove seems to echo what you've been saying already - pretty much. So I'm not sure how much I can say on that that I haven't already said.

Before I start in on Kuhn, does anyone wanna ask me anything? I've been trying to respond to Tarski's original questions, and so I fear skipping over things here and there in the thread. But now that I've probably said all I need to say about Popper, is there something I haven't addressed?

Well, I am interested to hear what you have to say about Kuhn, but I would like to hear you tackle the Newtonian example I bought up earlier. Can you explain to me why - if you lived pre-Einstien - you might have 'trouble' declaring the Newtonian notion of gravity to be 'the truth'? Would you have any doubt? If so why? If not, why not?

You've spent a lot of time on why all kinds of nutty philosophers got the wrong answer. But can you tell me what the 'right' answer is?
Cos I'd really like to know :) So far the best I can try and assemble is 'Just ignore things like this, or don't make too big a deal out of it'. Well - all well and good, but I think anybody daring to call themselves a 'philosopher of science' would have to at least attempt to do a little better than this... Personally...

"Consequently, I want to begin by declaring that I regard scientific knowledge as the best and most important kind of knowledge we have - though I am far from regarding it as the only one". ("In Search of a Better World", p. 3).

So, according to Popper, the "best and most important kind of knowledge" is knowledge which is "often not true". How, I ask, can "often untrue knowledge" be better and more important than, say - oh, I don't know - probably true knowledge? (And that is even granting that knowledge even permits such modifiers as "probably true"...).

And this is what I mean. I 'get' what Popper is saying here (maybe because I'm as insane as he was?), and I have no issue with it.
Scientific knowledge IS the best kind of knowledge we have. (At least about what IS. What OUGHT to be is a completely different matter...)
And yet, it sometimes turns out to be just plain wrong - in the long run. Isn't Newtonian gravity the classic example of this?

Isn't it just saying 'Even though science isn't perfect, it's the best we've got'...? Who would argue with that? (At least, amongst those who take the issue of 'science' seriously...)

First, a riff on your first one (still no life).

I don't like false modesty!
It's an insult to those of us who really do have no life!! :D

[_Ren]

About this whole "Could Popper really be serious about his 'growth of knowledge' thing, given all the things he had to say..."

Look at it this way:

A detective has 5 suspects that could be linked to a crime.

A bit of evidence is found that dismisses suspect A.
And then he finds another bit of evidence that would seem to get B off the hook.
And then the same for C.
And then the same for D.

But, the detective can't find one extra bit of evidence to pin on suspect E. Not one.

Does the detective 'know' more now than when she started the investigation?
Or is it more accurate to say 'The detective is closer to the truth then she was when she started the investigation'?

And is there a difference between the two statements?

[NorthboundZax]

I mean pulling short Popper quotes rend from their context in a way that can confuse the reader without an appropriate background as to what, exactly, Popper is talking about to more easily mock him. The style seems to follow Stove from what I've read.

---Man, are you ever full of s**t...

Slap yourself in the head, Blight - you are truly embarrassing; not least because, evidently you will be as incapable of producing any corroborating examples gleaned from the thousands of words I've written on this thread for this latest charge, as you were your earlier charge about Brooks. Don't you get embarrassed?

Quote:
By the way, perhaps a new low for you in non-logic is your beyond lame insinuation, or whatever it is, based on Stove's piece on women.

Your anti-feminist views parallel nicely with those of Stove. Granted, you haven't said anything as extreme, though you've walked on the borders of it and engaged in just as shoddy reasoning. Given that you recommended him here, it wasn't unreasonable to speculate that perhaps he is an influence in that domain as well. I would've wrote

---"would've wrote"?

the same paranthetical

---"paranthetical"?

"if you were arguing something similar to one of his other dubious views (and boy howdy does he have a lot of them) in another thread."

---Man, do you sound ignorant...

I'm not sure if you're going to understand this or not, but...here goes: Stove's essays on cricket, women, Darwin, Nelson Goodman, communism, etc., don't have anything to do with what we're talking about here. But, since you brought it up, I will say that if you mean to imply that believing there is evidence that male and female brains tend to differ is tantamount to thinking that one sex is better, or smarter, than the other, or that one sex should enjoy fewer opportunities for self-fulfillment than another, then plainly, something has gone terribly wrong with your thoughts. Just how brightly is that Light of yours shining, amigo? Turn up the voltage, for God's sake! We need something like the glowing stones in the Brother of Jared's upside-down rotating submarines here.

Quote:
when you yourself won't even produce one single quote for a very nasty, personally insulting, characterization of Brooks?

You were making repeated attempts to bait me in the thread, which you had attempted elsewhere prior to that, so I left you be. I'm not interested in those games. But yeah, Brooks, like Stove, is a misogynist.

---Blight, can I ask you a serious question? Are you Pahoran or Wade Englund or a Peterson-ape or something? Juliann, perhaps? I don't know of any other people who say such things. That you actually think this sounds any better than Runaway Dan's "great reasons" for not debating Bob McCue is actually sad. GET WITH IT, BRO!

What the heck is it with you guys?! Baiting, not baiting - who cares? Even if I was "baitiing", why not show everyone that my doubts about you - since from what I can tell, you're nothing but bluff - are unfounded, by showing me all those David Brooks "rabid misogyny" quotes you claimed abounded on Google? SHOW ME ONE, Light. Show me some examples of how I've misrepresented Popper. (Or will that offer be refused on some pathetic ground, too?).

I ask again: don't you get embarrassed? I don't understand guys like you, who come and say such nonsense, and then just leave it there hanging - no substantiation, no retraction, nothing, and then inventing phantom excuses for not taking responsibility for your own statements. I'd be frigging MORTIFIED if I couldn't even produce a single scrap of substantiation for something I'd said, and if I couldn't, I'd retract my statement at once. But you and a few others on this board....what is it? It's like you don't even notice how embarrassing it is.

If by "detached-from-reality" you mean "pragamatic" then yeah, that sounds about right. Pragmatic notions of truth aren't prima facie wrong like you seem to regard them.

---So the criterion by which you decide what is true, is...what is "useful"? Gee, where have I heard that before?

Disconfirmation alone is enough to provide progress in knowledge.

---Hey Blight - do me a favour: get back to me once you get past the Wikipedia synopses and on to an examination of one of Popper's actual books, okay? Is that too much to ask? I know that error elimination, in a normal environment, is a sort of progress; the problem is, Popper's world isn't a "normal environment". There, error elimination is the same sort of "progress" as is constituted by, one by one, eliminating "wrong" numbers from an infinity of numbers, only one of which is correct, but which you can never, ever know, or even have any reason to believe in. That is, once you dive into Popper's world, not even error elimination can really count as "progress", no matter what he tries to say in the interests of plausibility. And Popper at times admits this himself. Why else should he have had to spill thousands of words trying to defend against the rationality of belief based on a calculation of truth probability? Can you get this?

We are capable of making sense of progression of knowledge with Popper's thoughts even if we aren't able to fully accord his philosophy with the dictates of reason.So when you offer the rhetorical question, "How does this make sense?!" it isn't too much to ask you to think about it a little, especially when others have started to answer the question for you. As Gadiation has pointed out to you, in a friendly way no doubt because you are not a believer, if your criticism is lobbed at those who fail to adequately account for progress in knowledge, then who exactly is left outside of your criticism? Do you think someone has succeeded where Popper has failed?

---Let me try to explain this. See if you can understand where I'm coming from here.

This discussion began (on another thread) because I happened to mention that some Mormon apologists sometimes base their apologetic arguments on claims (like those made by Popper and Kuhn) that it is not clear that we can know anything about the world. But if it is the case that the epistemic claims of Karl Popper, for example, turn out not to just susceptible to criticism, but in fact, are intolerant of any meaningful conception of knowledge as distinct from "the wildest of guesses" (which of course they are), then - perhaps not for you, who's probably still waiting for the Ten Tribes to come marching out from under the polar ice cap, but for others - we have good reason to believe at least a couple of things:

1.) That the apologetic arguments in question are very counterproductive, since Mormonism claims to warrant faith far beyond that which a "wild guess" would warrant, if not even promise Knowledge capital K;

2.) That some Mormon apologists don't know what they're talking about in at least some cases;

Stuff like that. Get it?

I would like to suggest to you, Light, that you are misunderstanding something crucial here. You keep talking about this as though it were only a matter of flaws being detected, or a matter of not believing we can have "absolute knowledge". But in fact, as I think I have shown, Popper is NOT just in the same category as most people trying, and ultimately failing, to produce a workable theory of knowledge; that is the whole point. Popper is in fact extremely far out on a limb, a champion - all in the name of rationalism and science, of course - of irrationalism and something approaching acatalepsy (look it up); and despite this - or perhaps, precisely because of it, given what feats of imagination and thwarting of critical faculties belief in Mormonism really requires - Mormon apologists are using, or even recommending, the guy's epistemic views while trying to defend a church which sponsors a monthly testimony meeting. And if you would read through the quotes I've put here, or better, actually read some of this junk yourself, instead of just assuming I'm wrong because I've acknowledged what you can't yet - that once, a young man didn't tell the truth - you would probably see that it is just as seriously irrationalist as I, and many others do. (Has it not been cause for you to wonder, Light, why your church heroes have been reduced to enlisting support from irrationalist anti-epistemologies, to drum up rationales for continued belief in Mormonism? No? Not even a little bit? Maybe it should....)

You're blinded by your lack of humility. I can assure you that you are wrong here. This is getting to be an eerie repeat of Guy's lecture on ethics to me by discussing the dichotomy of "formalism" and "utilitarianism." Either you would benefit from reading much more than you have or much less. Hard to say at this point.

---Perhaps I am blinded by a lack of humility, "A Light In The Darkness" - all the more reason for you to produce something more convincing of my error than your "assurance" that I'm wrong. Or did you really just expect me to take your word for it? I mean, as far as I can tell from what you "would've wrote" here, you ain't exactly Bertrand Russell, you know? Like, how's this for an idea: you actually EXPLAIN, using references from Popper himself, what I've gotten wrong, and how. Is that a crazy idea? Then, I answer back, or concede your point. Believe me, I'm clear on your talent for assuring people that things are just so, wiithout accepting any burden of justifying that assurance; what I'd like to see is a talent for actually doing more than a three year old could do. Anyone can "assure" anyone of ANYTHING. But can you back it up?

Your reply will answer this question, one way or the other.

[Guest]

This discussion began (on another thread) because I happened to mention that some Mormon apologists sometimes base their apologetic arguments on claims (like those made by Popper and Kuhn) that it is not clear that we can know anything about the world. But if it is the case that the epistemic claims of Karl Popper, for example, turn out not to just susceptible to criticism, but in fact, are intolerant of any meaningful conception of knowledge as distinct from "the wildest of guesses" (which of course they are), then - perhaps not for you, who's probably still waiting for the Ten Tribes to come marching out from under the polar ice cap, but for others - we have good reason to believe at least a couple of things:

1.) That the apologetic arguments in question are very counterproductive, since Mormonism claims to warrant faith far beyond that which a "wild guess" would warrant, if not even Knowledge capital K;

2.) That some Mormon apologists don't know what they're talking about in at least some cases;

I find it really quite repugnant to use sensible, rational analysis on the 'reliability' of scientific knowledge as an exuse to make cheap attacks against scientific theories a person just doesn't happen to like. I don't know the details about the specifics of the cases you are refering to Tal - so I won't judge them in particular. But I've seen enough of it to know that it goes on all the time. It's frankly, pathetic.
And I really hope this isn't the reason Popper is being hung out to dry here.

If anybody thinks that some currently trusted theory is some wet piece of lettuce dangling by a sliver of a thread that is bound to drop at any moment, then - well - how about putting your money where your mouth is and actually falsify the damn theory! That would show that you actually have some respect for Popper's views...

I'm really quite 'nerdily' upset that Popper is on the stand (seemingly) only because of how others may try and abuse his viewpoint. Doesn't seem right to me...
You can think of Popper however you like. But I - for one - don't doubt his committment and his seriousness concerning the cause of science. Many who try and take advantage of him, however, aren't at all. His views are just 'convinient' to them. And if we can't move away from this context in relation to judging what he said - then, well. I'm not sure I'm that interested in going too much further...

And there's only one song to play after a rant like that...!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMOq0IdTn6A
JAM SUCKA! GROOVE SUCKA! DANCE SUCKA! MOVE SUCKA!

[_A Light in the Darkness]

---So the criterion by which you decide what is true, is...what is "useful"? Gee, where have I heard that before?

---So the criterion by which you decide what is true, is...what is "useful"? Gee, where have I heard that before?

Charles Sanders Pierce? John Dewey? Though we are technically talking about instrumentalism here, which isn't pragmatism per se. I wasn't being totally formal there. It's more like, "we should hold onto that which is useful and discard that which is not." Doing that, over time, will result in a progression. You spent an awful long time clumsily pointing out Popper thinks of the merit of scientific theories in instrumentalist terms. And that's how he understands progress in scientific knowledge. You, in an unstated argument, dismiss this perspective and think you've therefore shown Popper as a loon. It's really odd.

But it gets even odder.

Popper clearly believed in progress in scientific knowledge. He said so himself and even attempts to account for it. Progress in knowledge is consistent with his naïve falsificationism. For most of us, that would be enough to meet the bar of saying, "Popper believed in the progress of knowledge." But you point out that he didn't believe in the progress in knowledge. Why? Well, it turns out that the fact that he is not ultimately successful in his account of it demonstrates his belief in it is irrational. And here's where the problem enters. Also he defined knowledge beyond one theory of it you apparently regard as correct and that is nothing more than abuse of language. Most people believe in progress in knowledge. But no one, as far as I can tell, has accounted for it. By your style of argument, they are irrational too. One is left to wonder if you think anyone believes in scientific progress given this stringent criteria. At a minimum you seem to believe it and do not think yourself irrational. Therefore, by virtue of your arguments, one is left to think you think you have some account of progress in knowledge we should all listen to. The same holds true for your criticism against Hume. You listed Hume's problem of induction, but you never got around to pointing out what is wrong with it. You just rhetorically pointed out you find inductive skepticism crazy and moved on. But guess what? Almost all of us save a few nutballs like Stove think the problem of induction is a problem. So your criticism of Hume extends beyond the handful of people you are talking about.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

---Hey Blight - do me a favour: get back to me once you get past the Wikipedia synopses and on to an examination of one of Popper's actual books, okay? Is that too much to ask? I know that error elimination, in a normal environment, is a sort of progress; the problem is, Popper's world isn't a "normal environment". There, error elimination is the same sort of "progress" as is constituted by, one by one, eliminating "wrong" numbers from an infinity of numbers, only one of which is correct, but which you can never, ever know, or even have any reason to believe in. That is, once you dive into Popper's world, not even error elimination can really count as "progress", no matter what he tries to say in the interests of plausibility. And Popper at times admits this himself. Why else should he have had to spill thousands of words trying to defend against the rationality of belief based on a calculation of truth probability? Can you get this?

The underdetermination problem exists for everyone. Even if you believe in confirmation theory, you still are left to grapple with the argument that observations are consistent with an infinite number of theories of which we are speculatively picking one. As you confirm your theory, you are still left with a pool of theory of equal merit in relation to the observations greater than 1. This isn't a problem unique to Popper's formulation of knowledge. If you are merely pointing out he has this problem, great. This is another epistemic issue like Hume's problem of induction. It's not clear how to resolve it. If you are pointing out this leaves him unable to say he believes in the progress of knowledge, then where does that leave everyone else?

[_A Light in the Darkness]

---Perhaps I am blinded by a lack of humility, "A Light In The Darkness" - all the more reason for you to produce something more convincing of my error than your "assurance" that I'm wrong. Or did you really just expect me to take your word for it? I mean, as far as I can tell from what you "would've wrote" here, you ain't exactly Bertrand Russell, you know? Like, how's this for an idea: you actually EXPLAIN, using references from Popper himself, what I've gotten wrong, and how. Is that a crazy idea? Then, I answer back, or concede your point. Believe me, I'm clear on your talent for assuring people that things are just so, wiithout accepting any burden of justifying that assurance; what I'd like to see is a talent for actually doing more than a three year old could do. Anyone can "assure" anyone of ANYTHING. But can you back it up?

Can I back up the fact that I've read Popper? You told me, on the basis of nothing more than your desire to insult and the fact that I don't agree that I haven't. I assured you otherwise, as that is all such a comment deserves. I'm not going to post a photo of my bookshelves to you. It's really a lame tangent.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

This discussion began (on another thread) because I happened to mention that some Mormon apologists sometimes base their apologetic arguments on claims (like those made by Popper and Kuhn) that it is not clear that we can know anything about the world.

1.) That the apologetic arguments in question are very counterproductive, since Mormonism claims to warrant faith far beyond that which a "wild guess" would warrant, if not even Knowledge capital K;

When prompted to justify this claim, you produced a series of quotes from Dr. Peterson that merely said that it is not possible to have absolute knowledge. That's true enough and easily defensible. It doesn't reach beyond this. It's such a glaring misreading that has led you to write so many bad arguments, it's difficult to imagine where to go from here. You've failed spectacularly to link Dr. Peterson to the view that knowledge is not possible. You've failed to even link Dr. Peterson minimally to Popper's philosophy disregarding, of course, that not everything Popper said is wrong. And Popper never claimed that knowledge is not possible. Perhaps knowledge in the sense you want, but that is a wholly different matter. You might argue that his arguments, when considered, reduce into that view, but that again is a different matter. Finally, funnily enough, if there ever was a cult philosopher of science among atheists, it is Popper. That along doesn't make atheism itself wrong or show the lengths of crazy irrationalism people will go to defend atheism. If some person defending the LDS faith, somewhere, understood the matter in Popperian terms all that shows is that some person, somewhere, is both LDS and a disciple of Popper just as some people believe in heliocentrism and are disciples of Popper. There are also fans of C.S. Pierce, Kant, Plato, Aristotle, Heidegger, Kierkegaard, Alston, Descartes and many more who think the LDS faith is reasonable. And the same is true of non-believers. People can vary greatly on the views on what is true while having the same views on "what is truth" and likewise people can agree on what they think is true while having different views on how one accounts for the nature of knowing.

[_Tarski]

OK, time for a some gauging.

In the begining Tal said "I think I can convince even you Tarski".

Well, I suppose there are several things that Tal is trying to convince us of but at this halfway point I thought I would say what I am so far convinced of and what I am not yet convinced of.

I am convinced that neither Hume nor Popper have provided a foundation for science (no surprise there!) and neither have given an analysis that is congruent with common sense. In particular, much of what Popper said defies common sense. (Of course, so does quantum mechanics).

I am convinced that Tal is well read, very intelligent and would be very successful both in grad school and in academics should he choose to pursue that path (well, except for one concern--see below).


I am not convinced that Tal has (or will be able to) explain exactly where the deductive arguments of Hume about induction go wrong (just accepting nondeductive species of logic is a possible manuever I suppose). Showing the untoward consequences for common sense is not the same thing as identifying the logical missteps (we can't disprove QM by demonstrating incongruity with common sense).


I am not yet convined that anything Tal has said, or that DCP has said, shows that DCP is a postmodernist or that Tal's derisive language is justified. (Supposedly words like "loser", loon," "sociopath," "idiot" "madman," "coward," "nuts"). It should be mentioned that in academics this would not be tolerated. In grad school, Tal would be exposed to respected and intelligent professors with far wackier views on knowledge, science and religion.

As an aside, I think you will agree that not everyone that either disagrees with or is unaware of the arguments of Stove is a postmodernist or radical relativist.

It seems to me that DCP holds that the ideal of absolute and perfect knowledge as envisioned by some classical epistemology is not possible for human beings. He also seems to hold that Mormons do not (or at least should not) think that thier so called testimonies are an instance of such ideal apodictic knowledge--that dispite the hyperbolic and emotional language used in some peoples expressions. There is always a component of faith (faith-is another story!).

Note that typical naïve attitudes about knowledge found among testimony bearing eight years old or eighty year old does not constitute some sort of official Mormon epistemology.


DCP is probably a falliblist re knowledge and that seems by itself to be far from loony. Falliblists are not obliged to go around saying things like "I am almost certain that Bill Clinton was once US president" and it might actually be rude to say "I am 98 percent sure that you won't let us down Donald!".


Here is what I am waiting for:

What positive account of knowledge and scientific progress will Tal give?

In particular, what account of induction can he give that is immune to Hume's logic?


A few minimalistic statements that I take as true:

Falsifiability is a virtue for a scientific theory (of course). Other virtues include, plausibility, explanatory power, theoretical elegance and clarity. There is no definitive list of all virtues for a scientific theory and not all good theories have every virtue.

Inductive reasoning is a useful, but not infallible, component of scientific reasoning.

I know of no one that has provided a plausible foundationalist account of scientific progress.

I know of no unassailable theoretical account of knowledge nor even an agreed upon formal definition of knowledge. In particular, it is not just the case that a person knows A if and only iff they believe A, and, A is true.