3 ms·

You've treated the views of a small group of philosophers as if they're representative of philosophy as a whole. "Falisifiability" is not something that can be

by swift 10y ago

You've treated the views of a small group of philosophers as if they're representative of philosophy as a whole. "Falisifiability" is not something that can be empirically tested because it is a concept that does not talk about things in the real, physical world. Full stop. That does not mean that we can't assign a truth value to it within a logical system, and that doesn't mean it isn't a useful idea that can guide our interactions with the real world. There is a lot of philosophy out there, and I think you'd find much of it just as useful as the ideas you've inherited from Karl Popper. Don't miss out on all that because you disagree with a few postmodernists!

lutusp 10y ago
> "Falisifiability" is not something that can be empirically tested because it is a concept that does not talk about things in the real, physical world. Full stop. No, that's wrong, quite wrong. Falsifiability (the thing itself as well as its usefulness to science) can both be tested -- are tested. Disciplines that require falsifability, objectively produce better representations of reality. This is so because the elements of such a system must all pass muster with reality. All falsifiability means is that reality-testing decides what's excluded from consideration. > There is a lot of philosophy out there, and I think you'd find much of it just as useful as the ideas you've inherited from Karl Popper. Karl Popper didn't invent falsifiability, he discovered it. The idea exists independent of any individual. Were this not so, if it really was the product of a particular person and with no independent existence, it would have a vanishingly small value. The reason? Ideas exist apart from those who express them (this goes back to Plato, if not farther). There are an infinity of primes. Who said it first? Did the idea exist before it was articulated? Psychologists talk about schizophrenia as though it's a mental illness (it's not, it's a physical illness with mental symptoms). Does this mean schizophrenia is owned by the field of psychology, or a particular psychologist? Not remotely -- it's an idea, not a property. Same with falsifiability.
- swift 10y ago
  If your contention is that a logical proposition like "no number of confirming observations can verify a universal generalization" can be tested empirically (i.e. by experimental observation of the physical world), then we're going to have to agree to disagree. If you agree that such a proposition is logical rather than empirical, then it seems clear that you see some use for philosophy after all, even if you resist admitting it. =) Don't get too hung up on Karl Popper or falsifiability, by the way. What I and others are trying to point out to you is that your dismissals of philosophy implicitly rely on a foundation of philosophical arguments.

by swift 10y ago

lutusp 10y ago

> "Falisifiability" is not something that can be empirically tested because it is a concept that does not talk about things in the real, physical world. Full stop. No, that's wrong, quite wrong. Falsifiability (the thing itself as well as its usefulness to science) can both be tested -- are tested. Disciplines that require falsifability, objectively produce better representations of reality. This is so because the elements of such a system must all pass muster with reality. All falsifiability means is that reality-testing decides what's excluded from consideration. > There is a lot of philosophy out there, and I think you'd find much of it just as useful as the ideas you've inherited from Karl Popper. Karl Popper didn't invent falsifiability, he discovered it. The idea exists independent of any individual. Were this not so, if it really was the product of a particular person and with no independent existence, it would have a vanishingly small value. The reason? Ideas exist apart from those who express them (this goes back to Plato, if not farther). There are an infinity of primes. Who said it first? Did the idea exist before it was articulated? Psychologists talk about schizophrenia as though it's a mental illness (it's not, it's a physical illness with mental symptoms). Does this mean schizophrenia is owned by the field of psychology, or a particular psychologist? Not remotely -- it's an idea, not a property. Same with falsifiability.

swift 10y ago
If your contention is that a logical proposition like "no number of confirming observations can verify a universal generalization" can be tested empirically (i.e. by experimental observation of the physical world), then we're going to have to agree to disagree. If you agree that such a proposition is logical rather than empirical, then it seems clear that you see some use for philosophy after all, even if you resist admitting it. =) Don't get too hung up on Karl Popper or falsifiability, by the way. What I and others are trying to point out to you is that your dismissals of philosophy implicitly rely on a foundation of philosophical arguments.