Popper Talk


Ellen Stuttle

Recommended Posts

Michael,

I find your latest reply just dizzying. I don't know what you're saying.

I started this thread with hopes of a discussion which I'd find productive about Popper. Maybe something will turn up from others. I'll try to stay away from responding to your posts, however.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ellen,

That's fine with me.

Here's a small example of what might make you dizzy, though. Perfectly logical deductions. For example:

All swans are white = Black swans cannot exist.

Can this be otherwise in logic?

Things like that. My post is full of them and they might be dizzying because they break the mold and the jargon. You won't find them in the text books.

Carry on. I have my own path.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen,

That's fine with me.

Here's a small example of what might make you dizzy, though. Perfectly logical deductions. For example:

All swans are white = Black swans cannot exist.

Can this be otherwise in logic?

The conclusion doesn't follow.

--Brant

All swans are white implies there do not exist non-white swans which further implies there do not exist black swans.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen,

That's fine with me.

Here's a small example of what might make you dizzy, though. Perfectly logical deductions. For example:

All swans are white = Black swans cannot exist.

Can this be otherwise in logic?

Things like that. My post is full of them and they might be dizzying because they break the mold and the jargon. You won't find them in the text books.

Carry on. I have my own path.

Michael

I think 'logic' is a complete waste of time - a red herring. Are you saying all swans are white, black swans cannot exist, the two statements are equivalent, or all of the above? If you say all swans are white how could you possibly know that, have you seen all swans? How can you know black swans cannot exist? The statements are certainly related but they definitely are not 'equal' to each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think 'logic' is a complete waste of time - a red herring. Are you saying all swans are white, black swans cannot exist, the two statements are equivalent, or all of the above? If you say all swans are white how could you possibly know that, have you seen all swans? How can you know black swans cannot exist? The statements are certainly related but they definitely are not 'equal' to each other.

Without ever seeing a swan I can tell you all swans are white implies there are no black swans.

Logic is about valid inferences, and is NOT about which premises are true.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited by BaalChatzaf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All swans are white implies there do not exist non-white swans which further implies there do not exist black swans.

Bob,

Jezuuss, I hear thunder.

We are agreeing?

:)

Michael

No. You wrote = (for logical equivalence, I assume). I wrote -implies- which is not symmetric. a implies b does not imply that b implies a. a and b are logically equivalent if and only if a implies b and b implies a.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob,

Whew! The thunder is receding...

That sounds a little too hairsplitting in terms of results.

Regardless of "imply" or anything else, I only know of one definition for "ALL" in that kind of proposition. It means there ain't no others.

Now whether you want to call deriving a conclusion from that equivalent, implication, subsuming of whatever, the fact holds that if ALL is white, black is impossible.

Want to try the syllogism?

All swans are white.

Nothing is possible outside of all.

Only white swans are possible.

Or how about this?

Only swans that are white in color are possible.

Black is a color.

Swans that are black in color are impossible.

Incidentally, how could I have used the equal sign to mean "equivalent" according to the classical rules of logic (as you presumed) if I am supposed to not know them? I smell a double standard somewhere... :)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without ever seeing a swan I can tell you all swans are white implies there are no black swans.

Logic is about valid inferences, and is NOT about which premises are true.

Ba'al Chatzaf

And I can tell you that it's ridiculous to discuss validity of inferences when we know the premise is ridiculous, but that's what "logicians" like to do I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen,

That's fine with me.

Here's a small example of what might make you dizzy, though. Perfectly logical deductions. For example:

All swans are white = Black swans cannot exist.

Can this be otherwise in logic?

The conclusion doesn't follow.

--Brant

This construction needs another premise. That all swans are white doesn't mean that tomorrow a black swan won't be born.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen,

That's fine with me.

Here's a small example of what might make you dizzy, though. Perfectly logical deductions. For example:

All swans are white = Black swans cannot exist.

Can this be otherwise in logic?

The conclusion doesn't follow.

--Brant

This construction needs another premise. That all swans are white doesn't mean that tomorrow a black swan won't be born.

--Brant

Then the proposition should be expressed all swans hatched prior to time T are white.

Normally an unqualified universal proposition is taken as timeless. Hence For all x P(x) would mean for all x that was, is, or will be. If a time issue is being folded in with the universally quantified statement, the statement should have some kind of qualifier or guardian clause.

In abstract or formal mathematics and logic the timeless mode is generally assume unless otherwise stated.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This construction needs another premise. That all swans are white doesn't mean that tomorrow a black swan won't be born.

Brant,

This is exactly what Hume was trying to say (predict the future). This is why I call it a strawman made by Hume. If you cannot predict the future with induction applied according to arbitrary criteria, Hume says induction is not reliable (apparently, also, because you cannot deduce with it). From there, Popper took it further, claiming induction does not exist at all.

My point about double standards is that using only observation and not using any concepts (the criteria used for judging induction), you cannot predict the future either.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen,

That's fine with me.

Here's a small example of what might make you dizzy, though. Perfectly logical deductions. For example:

All swans are white = Black swans cannot exist.

Can this be otherwise in logic?

The conclusion doesn't follow.

--Brant

This construction needs another premise. That all swans are white doesn't mean that tomorrow a black swan won't be born.

--Brant

Then the proposition should be expressed all swans hatched prior to time T are white.

Then won't we have a tautology as a conclusion?

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, here is an excellent online article on Popper from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Karl Popper

This provides what looks like a pretty good overview of his main views and criticisms against him.

I might as well add this link for good measure, seeing how this is an Objectivist site and the essay was critiqued by David Kelley and Tibor Machan (and some others).

Debunking Popper: A Critique of Karl Popper's Critical Rationalism by Nicholas Dykes

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen,

That's fine with me.

Here's a small example of what might make you dizzy, though. Perfectly logical deductions. For example:

All swans are white = Black swans cannot exist.

Can this be otherwise in logic?

The conclusion doesn't follow.

--Brant

This construction needs another premise. That all swans are white doesn't mean that tomorrow a black swan won't be born.

--Brant

Then the proposition should be expressed all swans hatched prior to time T are white.

Then won't we have a tautology as a conclusion?

--Brant

No. Because the conclusion still might be false. There might have been a black swan hatched before time T that was not known.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike:

>For the record, here is an excellent online article on Popper from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Karl Popper

I'd rate it "not bad" rather than excellent. Weaknesses include the implication that the failure of Popper's particular theory of verisimilitude undoes his whole philosophy of science. If that were really the case, it seems hard to explain why one of the destroyers of that particular theory, David Miller, remains Popper's stoutest defender. But on the whole it's pretty accurate.

Mike:

>Debunking Popper: A Critique of Karl Popper's Critical Rationalism by Nicholas Dykes

On the other hand, we have the case of Mr Dykes. I've always said this particular essay should come with a laugh track...;-) One day I suppose I'll get around to a thorough critique of this chestnut. However, for now we can put forward the following theses:

P1: Popper's theory depends on Hume's (negative) solution to the problem of induction

P2: Relying on HWB Joseph, Dykes shows Hume's solution is a fallacy, thus destroying Popper

P3: The philosopher who can demonstrate Hume's solution to be a fallacy will surely be acclaimed as one of the most famous philosophers of all time.

P4: Neither Dykes nor HWB Joseph is one of the most famous philosophers of all time.

Draw your own conclusions...;-)

Edited by Daniel Barnes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel,

I have not fully digested everything, but one thing I did uncover while looking up who is who. You may think Dykes's essay should come with a "laugh track," but David Miller, whom you qualified as "Popper's stoutest defender" does not. He is listed in the acknowledgments. From the article: Debunking Popper: A Critique of Karl Popper's Critical Rationalism.

Acknowledgements

Before beginning, the author would like to express his sincere thanks to David Conway, Anthony Flew, David Kelley, Tibor Machan and David Miller for valuable observations or criticisms which led to the reworking of many passages; to Kevin McFarlane and Brian Micklethwait for encouragement and practical help; and to The Estate of Karl Popper for kind permission to reproduce copyright material.

(My emphasis on Miller's name.)

Before I discuss this particular article further, I need more work. I started in on it once, but got distracted by another issue.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike:

>I have not fully digested everything, but one thing I did uncover while looking up who is who. You may think Dykes's essay should come with a "laugh track," but David Miller, whom you qualified as "Popper's stoutest defender" does not. He is listed in the acknowledgments.

I know, Mike. I have, um, read this essay several times before. Do you think just because he's listed in the acknowledgements, Miller therefore thinks Dykes' essay has merit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think just because he's listed in the acknowledgements, Miller therefore thinks Dykes' essay has merit?

Daniel,

Miller obviously thought the essay had enough merit to critique it pre-publication and have no problem with his name on it. I assume this was not a paid gig. Miller sounds like a serious man who does not throw away his time on items he deems without merit.

Has he complained anywhere that his name was included in the acknowledgments or that he did not really critique the article for Dykes? Has he reviewed the article somewhere, blasting it? (I ask because I do not know.)

Other than looking at Miller's public acts, I have no idea what he thinks. I never met him.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike:

>Is there a link you can provide to an essay by Miller about Dykes or something like that?

As far as I am aware Miller did not reply to Dykes. Do you think that every time one thinker consults another, and then writes something the latter disagrees with, somehow demands the latter reply? Dykes's argument is not even directed at Miller.

Here's a suitably short and sweet example of what David Miller thinks.

Money quote:

"Like Bertrand Russell before them, they associate unflinching skepticism with insincerity (whereas Hume, a shrewder psychologist, realized that insincerity, or at least laziness, is the only remedy for skepticism)."

The congruence between this point of view and Dykes' is nil.

FYI, the Law of Identity refutes the problem of induction like a fish refutes a bicycle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel,

Here is a suggestion. Why not ask Miller what he thinks of Dykes's article and if it has merit. If not, then why did he critique it? That's a pretty simple thing to do. I often do that with Barbara when I have doubts, but I have also done that with several other heavies in the Objectivist world.

As to the Miller article, Being an Absolute Skeptic, frankly I find rhetoric thick with "ists" and "isms" and a "put-down" kind of snobbishness tedious to read. But read I did. And I have a real problem with statements like the following from the article:

My own opinion is that Hume's argument is indeed open to question. (It would be inappropriate to enter into this delicate issue here.) This is not to concede that Hume's conclusion is not correct. It is correct.

When I read things like that, I tune out. It's a choice, but for my own life, it's a good one. I am not eternal. I'll stick with Popper for my understanding of CR.

Speaking of eternal (time, that is), one thing did become clear to me on reading this essay. I have no idea why time is divorced from an entity's identity in CR, but is included in observation as if it were background only. I do not hold much sympathy for that idea. Without time included in identity, there is no causality. But with correct identification of causal relations, predictability is not only possible, it works.

Incidentally, what on earth are you talking about here?

As far as I am aware Miller did not reply to Dykes. Do you think that every time one thinker consults another, and then writes something the latter disagrees with, somehow demands the latter reply? Dykes's argument is not even directed at Miller.

You were the one channeling Miller. I merely pointed out that his acts are not in alignment with what you claim he thinks about Dykes's essay. I don't think any of that crap you just talked about. Stick to channeling Miller. You have a ways to go before you can correctly channel me.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now