| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Wen-King Su" |
| Date: |
08 Aug 2003 05:38:01 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:> ;See Popper, _The Logic of Scientific Discovery_, Chapter 1, Section 8,
;> :"Scientific Objectivity and Subjective Conviction"
:> ;
;> :[Beliefs (personal subjective convictions) have no bearing on scientific
:> ;discovery.]
;> :
:> ;"Only when certain events recur in accordance with rules or regularities,
;as
:> :is the case with repeatable experiments, can our observations be tested -
;in
:> ;principle - by anyone. We do not take even our own observations quite
;> :seriously, or accept them as scientific observations, until we have
:repeated
;> ;and tested them. Only by such repetitions can we convince ourselves that
:we
;> :are not dealing with a mere isolated 'coincidence', but with events
:which,
;> ;on account of their regularity and reproducibility, are in principle
:> :inter-subjectively testable." --Popper
;>
:> The quote says nothing about knowledge.
;
:What do you recon Popper is writing about in _The Logic of Scientific
;Discovery_, how to increase the knowledge base through logical scientific
:discovery, or how to make chopped liver? Pick one.
Scientific evidences, of course. But what about knowlege in general,
only some of which are scientific evidences?
.
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
08 Aug 2003 06:28:51 PM |
|
|
"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
news:bh18o9$9dr@neptune.myri-local.com...
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:> ;See Popper, _The Logic of Scientific Discovery_, Chapter 1, Section 8,
;> :"Scientific Objectivity and Subjective Conviction"
:> ;
;> :[Beliefs (personal subjective convictions) have no bearing on
scientific
:> ;discovery.]
;> :
:> ;"Only when certain events recur in accordance with rules or
regularities,
;as
:> :is the case with repeatable experiments, can our observations be
tested -
;in
:> ;principle - by anyone. We do not take even our own observations quite
;> :seriously, or accept them as scientific observations, until we have
:repeated
;> ;and tested them. Only by such repetitions can we convince ourselves
that
:we
;> :are not dealing with a mere isolated 'coincidence', but with events
:which,
;> ;on account of their regularity and reproducibility, are in principle
:> :inter-subjectively testable." --Popper
;>
:> The quote says nothing about knowledge.
;
:What do you recon Popper is writing about in _The Logic of Scientific
;Discovery_, how to increase the knowledge base through logical scientific
:discovery, or how to make chopped liver? Pick one.
Scientific evidences, of course. But what about knowlege in general,
only some of which are scientific evidences?
So, you don't pick "How to make chopped liver," you pick "How to increase
the knowledge base through logical scientific discovery."
Then the way to increase the knowledge base through logical scientific
discovery is as Popper describes the procedure.
Repeat your observations and test them, and report the results to the public
so that they can be repeated and tested. "Only by such repetitions can we
convince ourselves that we are not dealing with a mere isolated
'coincidence', but with events which, on account of their regularity and
reproducibility, are in principle inter-subjectively testable." --Popper
See, this is all about increasing the general knowledge base of knowledge in
general. Belief (subjective conviction) is not in the picture.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
08 Aug 2003 06:54:09 PM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
;news:bh18o9$9dr@neptune.myri-local.com...
:> In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
;>
:> :> ;See Popper, _The Logic of Scientific Discovery_, Chapter 1, Section 8,
;> ;> :"Scientific Objectivity and Subjective Conviction"
:> :> ;
;> ;> :[Beliefs (personal subjective convictions) have no bearing on
:scientific
;> :> ;discovery.]
:> ;> :
;> :> ;"Only when certain events recur in accordance with rules or
:regularities,
;> ;as
:> :> :is the case with repeatable experiments, can our observations be
;tested -
:> ;in
;> :> ;principle - by anyone. We do not take even our own observations quite
:> ;> :seriously, or accept them as scientific observations, until we have
;> :repeated
:> ;> ;and tested them. Only by such repetitions can we convince ourselves
;that
:> :we
;> ;> :are not dealing with a mere isolated 'coincidence', but with events
:> :which,
;> ;> ;on account of their regularity and reproducibility, are in principle
:> :> :inter-subjectively testable." --Popper
;> ;>
:> :> The quote says nothing about knowledge.
;> ;
:> :What do you recon Popper is writing about in _The Logic of Scientific
;> ;Discovery_, how to increase the knowledge base through logical scientific
:> :discovery, or how to make chopped liver? Pick one.
;>
:> Scientific evidences, of course. But what about knowlege in general,
;> only some of which are scientific evidences?
:
;So, you don't pick "How to make chopped liver," you pick "How to increase
:the knowledge base through logical scientific discovery."
No no. Asking me to pick one or the other is a diversion by you,
for together they don't cover the whole.
:Then the way to increase the knowledge base through logical scientific
;discovery is as Popper describes the procedure.
But of course it doesn't say that. It talk about the scientific way to
increase knowledge base. It doesn't say it is the only way. So, what
about knowlege in general, only some of which are scientific evidences?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
