4 ms·

Yes, after having read this article I’m none the wiser about why Popper was wrong or even if he was wrong about falsificationism. It starts with an interesting

by Veen 5y ago

Yes, after having read this article I’m none the wiser about why Popper was wrong or even if he was wrong about falsificationism. It starts with an interesting thesis, takes a detour which seems intended to smear Popper’s ideas by associating them with people who had some affinity for eugenics, and then degenerates into a lament about how neoliberals aren’t socialists and that somehow means falsificationism is responsible for the ills of the world. I share the author’s concerns about the supposed ethical neutrality of the application of scientific discoveries, but that has to do with politics and ethics and not the methods scientists use to make those discoveries. It’s like blaming theoretical computer science for the developing the techniques later programmers use in missile guidance systems. The theory isn’t the problem, the application is.

aww_dang 5y ago
Meanwhile, if we were inclined to go there, there is a nexus between the population control movement, the Rockefeller Foundation(s), positive eugenics and the green agenda.
routerl 5y ago
> Yes, after having read this article I’m none the wiser about why Popper was wrong or even if he was wrong about falsificationism. "While all this was going on, three philosophers were pulling[0] the rug away beneath the Popperians’ feet. They argued[1] that[2], when an experiment fails to prove a hypothesis, any element of the physical or theoretical set-up could be to blame. Nor can any single disproof ever count against a theory, since we can always put in a good-faith auxiliary hypothesis to protect it: perhaps the lab mice weren’t sufficiently inbred to produce genetic consistency; perhaps the chemical reaction occurs only in the presence of a particular catalyst. Moreover, we have to protect some theories for the sake of getting on at all. Generally, we don’t conclude that we have disproved well-established laws of physics – rather, that our experiment was faulty." The basic argument is that falsificationism isn't actually how science is carried out. [0] https://www.jstor.org/stable/2181906?seq=1 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2181906?seq=1 [1] https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-010-1863-0_14 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-010-1863-0_... [2] https://philarchive.org/archive/THOPBS https://philarchive.org/archive/THOPBS
- Veen 5y ago
  I’m aware of the arguments against Popper’s ideas, but I don’t see how that connects to the malign activities the article’s author tries to make it responsible for. The argument takes a leap from Popper was wrong to neoliberals suck without sufficiently connecting the two. Would neoliberalism never have happened without Popper? Seems unlikely. Would all those malign consequences be fine if falsificationism was, in fact, correct? Why should we prefer a more socialist approach to science instead of say, a Christian approach that would also foreground ethics. Plus, Popper was hardly the first person to argue that science is value neutral. Thinkers have been saying that since the enlightenment.

by Veen 5y ago

aww_dang 5y ago

Meanwhile, if we were inclined to go there, there is a nexus between the population control movement, the Rockefeller Foundation(s), positive eugenics and the green agenda.

routerl 5y ago

> Yes, after having read this article I’m none the wiser about why Popper was wrong or even if he was wrong about falsificationism. "While all this was going on, three philosophers were pulling[0] the rug away beneath the Popperians’ feet. They argued[1] that[2], when an experiment fails to prove a hypothesis, any element of the physical or theoretical set-up could be to blame. Nor can any single disproof ever count against a theory, since we can always put in a good-faith auxiliary hypothesis to protect it: perhaps the lab mice weren’t sufficiently inbred to produce genetic consistency; perhaps the chemical reaction occurs only in the presence of a particular catalyst. Moreover, we have to protect some theories for the sake of getting on at all. Generally, we don’t conclude that we have disproved well-established laws of physics – rather, that our experiment was faulty." The basic argument is that falsificationism isn't actually how science is carried out. [0] https://www.jstor.org/stable/2181906?seq=1 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2181906?seq=1 [1] https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-010-1863-0_14 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-010-1863-0_... [2] https://philarchive.org/archive/THOPBS https://philarchive.org/archive/THOPBS

Veen 5y ago
I’m aware of the arguments against Popper’s ideas, but I don’t see how that connects to the malign activities the article’s author tries to make it responsible for. The argument takes a leap from Popper was wrong to neoliberals suck without sufficiently connecting the two. Would neoliberalism never have happened without Popper? Seems unlikely. Would all those malign consequences be fine if falsificationism was, in fact, correct? Why should we prefer a more socialist approach to science instead of say, a Christian approach that would also foreground ethics. Plus, Popper was hardly the first person to argue that science is value neutral. Thinkers have been saying that since the enlightenment.