3 ms·

This is Popper's theory and it is false. You can't define what is false without some standard of what is true. It is a misapplication or misrepresentation of A

by dmfdmf 8y ago

This is Popper's theory and it is false. You can't define what is false without some standard of what is true. It is a misapplication or misrepresentation of Aristotles's law of non-contradiction, i.e. a contradiction proves something false but not what is true.

grizzles 8y ago
So if you had a theory that the moon was entirely made of blue cheese and Buzz Aldrin gave you a piece of lunar regolith that was obviously not blue cheese. I'd say he proved your claim wrong without necessarily establishing any necessary standard of truth. In pure sciences like physics, if you need to use statistics to make your point then you've probably did the wrong experiment. Popper's contribution is about finding theories that offer greater explanatory power than previous theories. Also it's a misunderstanding of his work to think he rules out establishing a standard of proof. He does not. Check out the wikipedia page for more about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
- dmfdmf 8y ago
  A "theory" that the moon was made of blue cheese is complete arbitrary non-sense which doesn't need refuting. On the other side -- the moon, orbital mechanics, Newton's laws to design the space craft and get it to the moon, that there are men who fly such machines and the machines are designed to support human life are all facts that are being implicitly denied by the blue cheese "theory". There is nothing to refute it is non-sense on its own terms. Moreover, theories are just a collection of statements so your distinction is irrelevant and you contradict your own position by claiming a statement; "that the moon was entirely made of blue cheese" is a theory. While your example is fanciful and exaggerated to make your point, it actually makes mine. You/Popper can't rip the application of the non-contradiction principle out of the context of the law of identity on which it is based and gives it meaning. The fundamental principle of existence is that anything that exists has identity. Non-contradiction is a (very crucial) corollary of identity and not a primary as Popper holds.
  - BigFish12 8y ago
    You state that Popper is incorrect because you need a sense of what's true to know what is false. But you then continue by saying Artistotle shows something is false(contradiction) but not what is true?... You just contradicted yourself.

by dmfdmf 8y ago

grizzles 8y ago

So if you had a theory that the moon was entirely made of blue cheese and Buzz Aldrin gave you a piece of lunar regolith that was obviously not blue cheese. I'd say he proved your claim wrong without necessarily establishing any necessary standard of truth. In pure sciences like physics, if you need to use statistics to make your point then you've probably did the wrong experiment. Popper's contribution is about finding theories that offer greater explanatory power than previous theories. Also it's a misunderstanding of his work to think he rules out establishing a standard of proof. He does not. Check out the wikipedia page for more about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

dmfdmf 8y ago
A "theory" that the moon was made of blue cheese is complete arbitrary non-sense which doesn't need refuting. On the other side -- the moon, orbital mechanics, Newton's laws to design the space craft and get it to the moon, that there are men who fly such machines and the machines are designed to support human life are all facts that are being implicitly denied by the blue cheese "theory". There is nothing to refute it is non-sense on its own terms. Moreover, theories are just a collection of statements so your distinction is irrelevant and you contradict your own position by claiming a statement; "that the moon was entirely made of blue cheese" is a theory. While your example is fanciful and exaggerated to make your point, it actually makes mine. You/Popper can't rip the application of the non-contradiction principle out of the context of the law of identity on which it is based and gives it meaning. The fundamental principle of existence is that anything that exists has identity. Non-contradiction is a (very crucial) corollary of identity and not a primary as Popper holds.
- BigFish12 8y ago
  You state that Popper is incorrect because you need a sense of what's true to know what is false. But you then continue by saying Artistotle shows something is false(contradiction) but not what is true?... You just contradicted yourself.