- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
14 Jun 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitWould a longer quote be better?
Entirely??
False?
Would you kindly pass me some of whatever it is you and Popper are smoking? It must be some good shiit - don't be selfish. 😵
"I hold that orthodoxy is the death of knowledge, since the growth of knowledge depends entirely on the existence of disagreement. Admittedly, disagreement may lead to strife, and even to violence. And this, I think, is very bad indeed, for I abhor violence. Yet disagreement may also lead to discussion, to argument and to mutual criticism. And these, I think, are of paramount importance, I suggest that the greatest step towards a better and more peaceful world was taken when the war of swords was first supported, and later sometimes even replaced, by a war of words. This is why my topic is of some practical significance."
- Karl Popper, The Myth of the Framework
http://www.wisewords.demon.co.uk/popper/
14 Jun 12
Originally posted by SwissGambityour disagreement has the potential of improving our knowledge base. now all you have to do is explain your position.
Entirely??
False?
Would you kindly pass me some of whatever it is you and Popper are smoking? It must be some good shiit - don't be selfish. 😵
14 Jun 12
Originally posted by JS357That's not really helping.
Would a longer quote be better?
"I hold that orthodoxy is the death of knowledge, since the growth of knowledge depends entirely on the existence of disagreement. Admittedly, disagreement may lead to strife, and even to violence. And this, I think, is very bad indeed, for I abhor violence. Yet disagreement may also lead to discussion, to argument and to mut ...[text shortened]... ance."
- Karl Popper, The Myth of the Framework
http://www.wisewords.demon.co.uk/popper/
I can think of examples where holding to existing teachings can lead to an increase in knowledge. Someone in my profession, for example, will not increase their knowledge of what is causing/causes a certain circuit failure unless he holds to the existing teachings of electronics: Ohm's Law, Kirchhoff's voltage and current Laws, etc.
The whole thing sounds like an overreaction to a lack of sufficient skepticism at the time. Saying the growth of knowledge depends entirely on the existence of agreement is just false. There are many times when our knowledge grows quite well by building new ideas on the foundation of things we already know.
15 Jun 12
Originally posted by SwissGambityou're using a wrong example. discovering the cause of a circuit failure is not a discovery of new knowledge.
That's not really helping.
I can think of examples where holding to existing teachings can lead to an increase in knowledge. Someone in my profession, for example, will not increase their knowledge of what is causing/causes a certain circuit failure unless he holds to the existing teachings of electronics: Ohm's Law, Kirchhoff's voltage and current La ...[text shortened]... knowledge grows quite well by building new ideas on the foundation of things we already know.
the knowledge of electricity will not increase unless there is doubt in the current models.
15 Jun 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritNo, there is nothing wrong with the example. 'New' knowledge is not limited to some change in, or addition to, fundamental principles. It is simply any knowledge that we did not have before.
you're using a wrong example. discovering the cause of a circuit failure is not a discovery of new knowledge.
the knowledge of electricity will not increase unless there is doubt in the current models.
You don't necessarily need to doubt current models if you are exploring uncharted areas within a discipline. There is nothing in place to doubt!
And isn't it possible [it has probably happened numerous times, but I am too lazy to go hunting for examples at the moment 😛] that a scientist may discover a theory that has far-reaching implications that are not immediately obvious? An old theory may be found to be overturned by the new one after the new one is discovered. Knowledge has advanced before doubt surfaced.
15 Jun 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritI agree with SwissGambit in that you are assuming that we believe the current models are comprehensive and exhaustive which is simply not the case. If we discover new things about electricity it will almost certainly be seen as an addition to the current models and not a correction of them.
the knowledge of electricity will not increase unless there is doubt in the current models.
Originally posted by SwissGambityou are describing circumstantial information, that sub category is out of context in this discussion. in the field of electricity for example, you diagnose a problem using existing knowledge. no net knowledge has been gained, you've just discovered circumstantial information, like a who-done-it in a crime.
No, there is nothing wrong with the example. 'New' knowledge is not limited to some change in, or addition to, fundamental principles. It is simply any knowledge that we did not have before.
You don't necessarily need to doubt current models if you are exploring uncharted areas within a discipline. There is nothing in place to doubt!
there is always existing knowledge to doubt. if you are exploring uncharted areas within a discipline, then you doubt that the existing knowledge within that discipline explains every phenomenon adequately.
And isn't it possible [it has probably happened numerous times, but I am too lazy to go hunting for examples at the moment 😛] that a scientist may discover a theory that has far-reaching implications that are not immediately obvious? An old theory may be found to be overturned by the new one after the new one is discovered. Knowledge has advanced before doubt surfaced.
going along with that speculation, what was the scientist doing when he stumbled onto this theory with far reaching implications? you show me an example of such a scientist and i'll show you an example of a scientist who was doubting some existing knowledge.
Originally posted by twhiteheadi'm not assuming any such thing. if you don't believe existing models are comprehensive, then you have doubt in the existing models which is what i've been saying all along.
I agree with SwissGambit in that you are assuming that we believe the current models are comprehensive and exhaustive which is simply not the case. If we discover new things about electricity it will almost certainly be seen as an addition to the current models and not a correction of them.
the critical rationalism philosophy takes into account additions, corrections and complete abandonment of existing knowledge based on doubt.
for example, additions will be discovered because there is doubt the current model explains every phenomenon.
in the process, it may be discovered that a current knowledge works incidentally but is incorrect, so corrections are made once again due to doubt.
and rarely, there may be a paradigm shift in which a new discovery may cause an entire field of knowledge to be abandoned and the new mechanism implemented.
15 Jun 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritI disagree. If I do not think that my English Dictionary is exhaustive of all English words, then I have 'doubt in my English Dictionary'.
i'm not assuming any such thing. if you don't believe existing models are comprehensive, then you have doubt in the existing models which is what i've been saying all along.
As I say, you are assuming that the existing models are claiming to be exhaustive - when they are not.
for example, additions will be discovered because there is doubt the current model explains every phenomenon.
Doubt is only the right word in this instance if the current model claims to explain everything. But it does not. You are starting to sound like a creationist who claims that something to do with the Big bang throws doubt on the Theory of Evolution.
in the process, it may be discovered that a current knowledge works incidentally but is incorrect, so corrections are made once again due to doubt.
It may be discovered or it may not. What if it is discovered that the current knowledge is correct, but there is more to know?
15 Jun 12
Originally posted by JS357Discussion is most interesting. Sent me thinking and exploring. Popper > Fallibilism > Pyronnhic philosophy (Pyrrhon, Sextus Empiricus) > extremes of skepticism as to final knowledge.
Would a longer quote be better?
"I hold that orthodoxy is the death of knowledge, since the growth of knowledge depends entirely on the existence of disagreement. Admittedly, disagreement may lead to strife, and even to violence. And this, I think, is very bad indeed, for I abhor violence. Yet disagreement may also lead to discussion, to argument and to mut ...[text shortened]... ance."
- Karl Popper, The Myth of the Framework
http://www.wisewords.demon.co.uk/popper/
Finally, the scent of Buddhist-like skepticism led to this site >http://pontosda.tumblr.com/post/5456143338/language-is-a-virus-skepticism-buddhism-and-the-best < informing of me of connections in history I did not know of. Fascinating.
Some excerpts:
"...As a brief introduction to a conversation that may be somewhat complex for those non-familiar with philosophy and Greek skepticism: the Greek word skepticism comes from the verb skeptesthai, “to observe”, “to investigate”. And that’s the skeptical attitude as described in Sextus Empiricus’s Outlines of Pyrrhonism; the skeptical is someone who observes and investigates. After considering differing and even contradictory views, and coming to the conclusion that all of them are acceptable and can be proved, the skeptical suspends his judgment. So the suspension of judgment (in Greek, epoche) is mainly something that happens to the skeptical, and not something that he actively seeks. It’s a passive process as well as an active one. Having suspended his judgments, the skeptical continues to live, of course, and continues to have the experience of phenomena, the experience of what happens, and is able to communicate and live this experience, without giving to it any solidity. Eventually the repeated experience of epoche leads to ataraxia, usually translated as “tranquility”.
From “Hellenism and Madyamika Buddhism”:
Pyrrhonism grew out of a Stoic philosophy and it reached its high point with Sextus Empirircus in the second century of our Common Era. During the same time Nagarjuna spent most of his life in Naagaarjunakonda and that city was in the orbit of Hellenistic influence.
I enjoyed seeing that the dialectic was introduced into Indian and Buddhist thought through Pyrrhon. McEvilley argues […] that the Hellenics must have introduced it, since Nagarjuna’s dialectic picked up at the stage of development of that of Sextus Empiricus […]
What amazed me was seeing the extraordinary similarity between Nagarjuna and Pyrrhon positions. To realize that these two thinkers were expressing the same doctrines, the same attitude, and even using the same metaphors and analogies to express their thought was eye opening...."
And another excerpt:
"...Both systems of the dialectic are designed to remove consciousness from identifying with any conceptual structure and that includes both natural and philosophical languages, and to block the possibility of identifying with ontology. They both believe the unreflective imposition of language and its categories on experience forces experience into the categories of language for which it is totally unfitted. It creates all the delusions and with it all the sufferings that mankind experiences. Thus, when you realize this, then the very conditions for being upset and suffering are overcome. And I know it is not an easy and simple task to live without these impositions of thought upon experience. It takes courage and an inner determination to live without concepts, but the concept-free mind is the mind of the Buddha, enlightenment.
The idea that we can have a non-conceptual experience of the moment, without intense goal direction in life, and without emotional attachment, is actually common to both Nagarjuna and Sextus. When the mind is suspended so that it neither affirms nor denies anything and recognizes nothing is more this than that, one reaches Epoche. What is that but a mind suspended from judging things as good or bad, right or wrong, and neither real nor unreal? Thus, the mind reaches silence (aphasia), freedom from all phenomenal influence (apatheia), and is no longer perturbed (ataraxia) so that each moment is lived without being either attached nor non-attached to anything... "
My comment:
This not fixing on final truth or rigid "reality" does not lead to ineffectiveness or lack of practical application, it simply frees and leaves open the meaning of phenomenon and further emergence. In fact, it prevents the rigidity that stultifies the scientific endeavor. All such "truths" appear to be ultimately furry and "working" ones. I am no mathematician, but I am reminded of Godel here also.
15 Jun 12
My only reflection is that in making this statement concepts are flying everywhere! Thus what does it mean this non-conceptual state? My own take on that is that there is an unstated intention of "no clinging" to ideas/things in a fixed manner.
I would be interested in bb's comment on that, if he be around.
15 Jun 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritGood lord - why muddy up the discussion with the clumsy terms of criminal law? I hope you're not holding out for the day when you can actually see the culprit electrons going the wrong way. 🙂
you are describing circumstantial information, that sub category is out of context in this discussion. in the field of electricity for example, you diagnose a problem using existing knowledge. no net knowledge has been gained, you've just discovered circumstantial information, like a who-done-it in a crime.
[quote]You don't necessarily need to doubt ...[text shortened]... entist and i'll show you an example of a scientist who was doubting some existing knowledge.
And why the arbitrary exclusion of circumstantial information? Doesn't Popper know that this 'circumstantial information' can lead to new discoveries? And hasn't he heard that we've been relying on such evidence to play with the sub-atomic world in general? (As well as the cosmological world! Big-time!)
And finally in paragraph 3 the trick is revealed. You will couch every new discovery [or at least the ones you can't arbitrarily rule out with the 'circumstantial' label] in the language of doubt [whether it is a good use of the word or not] and conclude, 'See? I told you advances in knowledge are entirely dependent on doubt!'
Continuing (and expanding) the hypothetical, Scientist A was working in field of study B and discovered theory C. 30 years later, Scientist D was working in field of study B as well, doing experiments with theory C in mind. He observes some strange behavior, analyzes it, and realizes it contradicts a prediction of old theory E, strongly enough where E must be overturned in favor of C. Of course, E is not just abandoned without a fight. Other scientists do the experiment (and other ones they think might help resolve the dilemma) and confirm that C triumphs over E.
This does not change the fact that A was not even thinking about E when he found C. If he wasn't thinking about E, he was not doubting E. Yet, knowledge advanced (C was discovered).
Originally posted by SwissGambitno, circumstantial information is "how is the weather today?" "oh, it's sunny."
Good lord - why muddy up the discussion with the clumsy terms of criminal law? I hope you're not holding out for the day when you can actually see the culprit electrons going the wrong way. 🙂
And why the arbitrary exclusion of circumstantial information? Doesn't Popper know that this 'circumstantial information' can lead to new discoveries? An e to play with the sub-atomic world in general? (As well as the cosmological world! Big-time!)
circumstantial information has nothing to do with the general growth of knowledge. you're trying to apply such information to the critical rationalist philosophy. it does not apply.
And finally in paragraph 3 the trick is revealed. You will couch every new discovery [or at least the ones you can't arbitrarily rule out with the 'circumstantial' label] in the language of doubt [whether it is a good use of the word or not] and conclude, 'See? I told you advances in knowledge are entirely dependent on doubt!'
you have not shown that this is not true. but continue doubting the philosophy, new knowledge may be gained through it!
Continuing (and expanding) the hypothetical, Scientist A was working in field of study B and discovered theory C. 30 years later, Scientist D was working in field of study B as well, doing experiments with theory C in mind. He observes some strange behavior, analyzes it, and realizes it contradicts a prediction of old theory E, strongly enough where E must be overturned in favor of C. Of course, E is not just abandoned without a fight. Other scientists do the experiment (and other ones they think might help resolve the dilemma) and confirm that C triumphs over E.
This does not change the fact that A was not even thinking about E when he found C. If he wasn't thinking about E, he was not doubting E. Yet, knowledge advanced (C was discovered).
the final result is irrelevant. the relevant fact is that scientist A was doubting theory C in the field of B and was working to disprove it when it led to other discoveries. but other scientists doubt this new discovery and make attempts to disprove it. critical rationalism is vindicated at every stage above. doubt has resulted in new discoveries and doubt continues in the face of the new discoveries.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
15 Jun 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Taoman
Discussion is most interesting. Sent me thinking and exploring. Popper > Fallibilism > Pyronnhic philosophy (Pyrrhon, Sextus Empiricus) > extremes of skepticism as to final knowledge.
Finally, the scent of Buddhist-like skepticism led to this site >http://pontosda.tumblr.com/post/5456143338/language-is-a-virus-skepticism-buddhism-and-the-best < informing of furry and "working" ones. I am no mathematician, but I am reminded of Godel here also.
"...Both systems of the dialectic are designed to remove consciousness from identifying with any conceptual structure and that includes both natural and philosophical languages, and to block the possibility of identifying with ontology. ..."
The part I bolded reminds me of how often in this forum and elsewhere I present an alternative point of view that interests me, and when someone challenges it, I feel like defending that POV as "truth." I identify myself with the concept I presented, and defend it, as if to defend it is to defend myself. Maybe this harkens back to Popper's talking about wars of swords being replaced by wars of words. They still involve offense vs defense, and identification with causes.
One of my dear sisters, now deceased, said once that her solution to this problem was to say "you might be right" and let go of the importance of the person's agreeing with me. I notice that my approach is [edit: sometimes] to couch my idea in noncommittal terms, or just keep my figurative mouth shut.😉
15 Jun 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritNo, A was not doubting theory C, because it did not yet exist.
no, circumstantial information is "how is the weather today?" "oh, it's sunny."
circumstantial information has nothing to do with the general growth of knowledge. you're trying to apply such information to the critical rationalist philosophy. it does not apply.
[quote]And finally in paragraph 3 the trick is revealed. You will couch every new discov ...[text shortened]... resulted in new discoveries and doubt continues in the face of the new discoveries.