3 ms·
I get that the analysis of the Iliad doesn't prove anything and it could just be a stylistic thing, but that doesn't mean the general story he lays out if total
by akvadrako 8y ago
I get that the analysis of the Iliad doesn't prove anything and it could just be a stylistic thing, but that doesn't mean the general story he lays out if totally wrong.
The theory is valuable because it's a good explanation for a lot of things and it doesn't disagree with the evidence. That's the purpose of all scientific theories, in Popper's philosophy of science, which is still the most relevant.
I haven't heard anything even half as compelling for a plausible evolution of social cohesion or the origin of consciousness, by which Jayne's means inner life.
- goto11 8y agoSo what could theoretically disprove the theory?
- akvadrako 8y agoI'm sure you can think of some things, but as long as it agrees with the available evidence and is the "best explanation", which includes some subjective and objective criteria, it's a valuable theory.
- goto11 8y agoYou specifically mention Popper. Poppers criteria of falsification states that it is not enough that a theory can explain everything. He observed that a lot of pseudoscience (astrology, marxism, freudian psychology at the time) really could be used to explain everything and couldn't really be disproved by any observation. Real scientific theories on the other hand could be used to make predictions which could be verified or shown to be wrong.
- akvadrako 8y agoI mentioned Popper because of his emphasis on good explanations. It’s a lot more than falsifiability.