Feyerabend's Against method: a proposal for debate
Jeff Dalton
science? Interested in (or in attacking) such thinkers as Feyerabend,
Kuhn, Rorty, Davidson, Putnam, and Hacking?
I'm issuing (via this article) a challenge to both Defenders of Reason
and Cultural Relativists to discuss -- not just with me -- Paul
Feyeraband's book _Against Method_. Why both groups are involved
should become clear below. (It's not because PKF is a cultural
relativist.)
Now, many people suppose, these days, that Feyerabend has been
completely discredited. I wonder if that is actually the case.
In any case, I think his views are worth taking seriously in a
serious discussion.
I recently saw that AM was in its 3rd edition and, since I hadn't
really looked at in in over 10 years, thought I would read it again.
On the other hand, merely reading it isn't that much fun. So:
As I read, I would like to bear criticisms of Feyerabend's position
in mind, to see to what extent they are justified.
Consequently, I'd like to hear some criticisms, and I'm looking
to readers of this article to provide them. (I already know some,
but don't let that stop you.)
In return, I will try to address the criticisms, and I will base
my replies in the actual text of _Against Method_, plus some other
texts that I find useful (for which see below).
However, I do not insist that critics do the same. They don't
have to provide any textual evidence that Feyerabend actually
holds the views they criticize, or textual evidence of any
other sort. (Still, the more detailed the criticisms the
better.)
Nonetheless, once we've beyond the initial presentation of criticism,
I hope that the discussion will pay attention to what Feyerabend and
other authors actually said. Bringing in textual evidence in this
way will, I hope, keep the discussion from degenerating into the usual
exchange of ill-thought out and mutually misunderstood positions.
Of course, people can discuss Against Method and all related issues
between themselves, not just with me. I don't really mean to be at the
center of this, just to get things going.
N.B. I've cross-posted this to a number of newsgroups where I've had or
seen interesting discussions in the past. Followups are directed to
sci.philosophy.tech. Even if you disagree with this, please don't
reply in all the newsgroups I listed initially.
Let me warn you that I intend to defend Feyerabend. However, my
defense may not be what you expect. My inclusion of eunet.politics
is significant here.
A few years ago, I was flamed to a crisp for saying something in
eunet.politics that was interpreted as (but wasn't) a claim that
there were no worthwhile benefits to learning a foreign language.
It emerged that some of my flamers held a fairly strong form of
linguistic relativism in which language and culture were almost
the same thing. It was even claimed, for instance, that one
could learn more about French culture by talking about computer
science in French than by going to France, talking to the French,
reading about French culture, etc, without learning French.
In such a debate, the extent to which translation is possible is
obviously relevant. I found that Feyerabend's views on translation
and incommensurability suggested that translation was more effective
than some suppose. Indeed, and contrary to what one might expect,
Feyerabend offers arguments against relativism and the usual,
extreme, view of what Kuhn and Feyerabend meant by incommensurability.
Now, other relevant texts. I can think of a few off hand. Others
may occur to me later. Anyway: _Feyerabend's Farewell to Reason_;
Bjorn T Ramsberg(?)'s _The Linguistic Philosophy of Donald Davidson_
(plus Davidson's own work); Richard Rorty's _Contingency, Irony,
and Solidarity_; and Ian Hacking's something and Intervening.
Don't forget: follow up to sci.philosophy.tech, not to all the
groups I included initially.
-- jeff
Neil Rickert
>
>I'm issuing (via this article) a challenge to both Defenders of Reason
>and Cultural Relativists to discuss -- not just with me -- Paul
>Feyeraband's book _Against Method_. Why both groups are involved
>should become clear below. (It's not because PKF is a cultural
>relativist.)
>I recently saw that AM was in its 3rd edition and, since I hadn't
>really looked at in in over 10 years, thought I would read it again.
>On the other hand, merely reading it isn't that much fun. So:
I'll comment, although I can't give you much meat to chew on.
One difficulty I have with _Against Method_ is that the picture it paints
of Galileo reads more like a caricature than like history. And when
Feyerabend described "counter induction" I could not help but wonder to
what extent this was tongue in cheek.
On the other hand, I can read AM as presenting the position that scientists
do not actually follow any narrowly defined "scientific method" described
by philosophers of science, and that science will make better progress
if this anarchy is allowed. If this is his point, I largely agree with
it.
Boucher David
#science? Interested in (or in attacking) such thinkers as Feyerabend,
#Kuhn, Rorty, Davidson, Putnam, and Hacking?
#[....]
#Let me warn you that I intend to defend Feyerabend. However, my
#defense may not be what you expect. My inclusion of eunet.politics
#is significant here.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....
- db
--
****** "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. ******
****** Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories ******
****** instead of theories to suit facts." - Sherlock Holmes ******
*************************************************************************
Michael Jampel
may be inaccurate. Sorry.
1. It is true that there is no scientific (or rational, or whatever)
way to distinguish science from pseudo-science.
2. But it does not follow that such a distinction does not exist.
There is an argument which runs along the lines of: if I touch my
mother's finger, is that incest? No. If I touch my mother's elbow, is
that incest? No. If I touch my mother's shoulder, is that incest? No.
But one can imagine certain parts of my mother's anatomy such that, if
I touched them, it would be incest. Please draw a precise line
separating the incest-zone from the innocent zone. You probably cannot
(or rather, you can; but for any line you draw, a rational person might
reasonably disagree with where you have drawn the line.) But it does
_not_ follow that incest does not exist. `I know it when I see it' is
not a scientific / rational argument, but it doesn't follow that the
distinction does not exist.]
So I think that Feyerabend goes from 1. to 2. incorrectly. I seem to
recall a quote along the lines of `Teaching school children chemistry
instead of voodoo / black magic is a form of intellectual fascism.'
This is such obvious rubbish [no, I will not / cannot back up that
opinion] that it casts doubt on any book which can contain it.
One nice thing about the book: the contents page with one paragraph
describing each chapter, so that you can get an overview. This is an
excellent device.
======================================================================
Michael Jampel Dept of Computer Science, City University,
jam...@cs.city.ac.uk Northampton Square, London, EC1V 0HB, England
phone +44 71 477 8449, fax +44 71 477 8587
GREGORY C.O'KELLY
not know what facts are relevant unless there is some initial theorizing. His-
tory is littered with scientists who, because of the beauty of a theory, either
discarded the infirming facts, or else fudged the facts so they would support
the theory. This can be seen with Newton, Hooke, and others, and in the present
day the physician in Canada who claimed that his data supported as superior
in its interventnion a lumpectomy rather than radical, disfiguring mastectomy
to treaad breast cancer. Although it is superior surgical intervention, his
data did not support this. Of such things is scientific progress made.
Andrew Dinn
: It has been a while since I read Against Method, so some of what I say
: may be inaccurate. Sorry.
: 1. It is true that there is no scientific (or rational, or whatever)
: way to distinguish science from pseudo-science.
: 2. But it does not follow that such a distinction does not exist.
: There is an argument which runs along the lines of: if I touch my
: mother's finger, is that incest? No. If I touch my mother's elbow, is
: that incest? No. If I touch my mother's shoulder, is that incest? No.
: But one can imagine certain parts of my mother's anatomy such that, if
: I touched them, it would be incest. Please draw a precise line
: separating the incest-zone from the innocent zone. You probably cannot
: (or rather, you can; but for any line you draw, a rational person might
: reasonably disagree with where you have drawn the line.) But it does
: _not_ follow that incest does not exist. `I know it when I see it' is
: not a scientific / rational argument, but it doesn't follow that the
: distinction does not exist.]
: So I think that Feyerabend goes from 1. to 2. incorrectly. I seem to
: recall a quote along the lines of `Teaching school children chemistry
: instead of voodoo / black magic is a form of intellectual fascism.'
: This is such obvious rubbish [no, I will not / cannot back up that
: opinion] that it casts doubt on any book which can contain it.
Your example quote contradicts your claim that Feyerabend goes from 1
to 2. It acknowledges the existence of a distinction between chemistry
and voodoo. So at least in this instance Feyerabend is not claiming 2,
merely reiterating 1 with what he considers a plausible explanation
viz. that such distinctions are ultimately based on communal
`prejudice'.
I borrow his pejorative, although one could also perhaps use more
positive terms such as consensus or agreement so long as they are
divested of any rational underpinnings. The sway rationalism holds
over our culture is such that terms which do not have some connotation
of `brute force' are unacceptable as accounts of behaviour which does
not involve explicit recourse to canonical systems of explanation. To
the extent that we even infer such recourse not only where there is no
behavioural support except post-hoc by way of justification but even
where post hoc justification cannot be obtained. This I believe is the
target of Feyerabend's point 1.
Andrew Dinn
-----------
there is no map / and a compass / wouldn't help at all
Jeff Dalton
>zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....
What is sci.skpetic for anyway? Skepticism or attacking non-science?
Boucher David
#In article <CnHnn...@uwindsor.ca> bou...@server.uwindsor.ca (Boucher David) writes:
#
#>zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....
#
#What is sci.skpetic for anyway? Skepticism or attacking non-science?
There is a difference between skepticism and solipsism. In any case,
I personally don't think Feyerabend is worth arguing over -- one might
as well hold a debate on Free Silver, or whether or not phlogiston has
negative mass.
DaveHatunen
Skepticism and attacking pseudo-science.
--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@netcom.com) **********
* Daly City California: *
* where San Francisco meets The Peninsula *
* and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea *
*******************************************************
Jeff Dalton
>In article <CnqvM...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>#In article <CnHnn...@uwindsor.ca> bou...@server.uwindsor.ca (Boucher David) writes:
>#
>#>zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....
>#
>#What is sci.skpetic for anyway? Skepticism or attacking non-science?
>
>There is a difference between skepticism and solipsism. In any case,
>I personally don't think Feyerabend is worth arguing over -- one might
>as well hold a debate on Free Silver, or whether or not phlogiston has
>negative mass.
Of course there's a difference between skepticism and solipsism.
But the skeptics in philosophy are those who argue that, for instance,
we don't have proper grounds for knowledge. Sci.skeptic seems to
be something else, namely skepticism about such things as parapsychology.
Is that right?
In any case, you confirm my impression that people think Feyerabend
has been decisively refuted.
-- jeff
Christopher Biow
DaveHatunen <hat...@netcom.com> wrote:
[what is sci.skeptic for?]
>Skepticism and attacking pseudo-science.
That leaves out attacking non-science that makes claims that are
both falsifiable and false, or incorrectly labeled as "proven."
Unfalsifiable (i.e. untestable) claims
should only be attacked in this 'group if they are labeled as
"science."
For example, if a religion claims to have a reproducable
healing phenomenon, that would be a valid subject for
critical evaluation on sci.skeptic.
DaveHatunen
Yeah. I was being cute. Reason: "non-science" is a non-word. It
includes true stuff that isn't science either. Skepticism doesn't deal
with that. It was a dumb question.
Of course, I personally think of faith healing as pseudo-science jsut
as much as I think of "psychic surgery" as pseudo-science. But I won't
argue about it.
Question to ponder: where is the boundary between religious faith
healing (including Christian Science?) and New Age Holistic Psychic
Healing?
Gary Merrill
In article <CnsMv...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
|> In article <Cnr6w...@uwindsor.ca> bou...@server.uwindsor.ca (Boucher David) writes:
|> >In article <CnqvM...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
|> >#In article <CnHnn...@uwindsor.ca> bou...@server.uwindsor.ca (Boucher David) writes:
|> >#
|> >#>zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....
|> >#
|> >#What is sci.skpetic for anyway? Skepticism or attacking non-science?
|> >
|> >There is a difference between skepticism and solipsism. In any case,
|> >I personally don't think Feyerabend is worth arguing over -- one might
|> >as well hold a debate on Free Silver, or whether or not phlogiston has
|> >negative mass.
Negative *weight*, not negative *mass*! Geez! How can you do
your smelting right?
--
Gary H. Merrill [Principal Systems Developer, Compiler and Tools Division]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC 27513 / (919) 677-8000
sas...@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
Michael Jampel
Jeff Dalton <je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>In any case, you confirm my impression that people think Feyerabend
>has been decisively refuted.
Yup. `Against Method' is a load of rubbish. Refute that statement
without using any of the Methods of which Feyerabend disapproves.
[Unless you re-interpret it and weaken it enough, in which case it
becomes trivially (banal-ly, if that word exists) true.]
Having lit the blue touch paper, I am retiring to a safe distance!
Michael Jampel
Jeff Dalton
>In article <CnsMv...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>,
>Jeff Dalton <je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>In any case, you confirm my impression that people think Feyerabend
>>has been decisively refuted.
>
>Yup. `Against Method' is a load of rubbish. Refute that statement
>without using any of the Methods of which Feyerabend disapproves.
Such as? (I'm serious, and I'm not trying to imply there are no such
methods. So tell me some methods he disapproves of.)
BTW, it helps to bear in mind (a) that Feyerabend is willing to
present arguements and use methods that he does not think are correct
and (b) that this doesn't mean the arguments and methods *aren't*
correct. Indeed, surely you'd agree that something isn't incorrect
just because Feyerabend thinks it is.
Moreover, Feyerabend's own position could be wrong or self-refuting
or whatever without that preventing him from presenting arguments that
are correct.
>[Unless you re-interpret it and weaken it enough, in which case it
>becomes trivially (banal-ly, if that word exists) true.]
It looks to me like it's full of stuff that's neither trivially
true nor self-refuting rubbish, for instance his account of how
Galileo's views prevailed.
-- jeff
Eric Pepke
> But the skeptics in philosophy are those who argue that, for instance,
> we don't have proper grounds for knowledge. Sci.skeptic seems to
> be something else, namely skepticism about such things as parapsychology.
> Is that right?
You are correct. The word "skepticism" has been used to mean a number of
different things over the years. Your description most accurately
describes one of the oldest forms of skepticism, which nowadays sometimes
goes by the name of "nihilistic skepticism."
This newsgroup is more about what might be called "scientific skepticism."
This is one of the reasons why it is in the sci hierarchy and not in some
other. It refers to skepticism about pseudoscientific claims, fringe
science claims, and sometimes well established scientific claims as well.
The newsgroup is not really supposed to deal with non-science at all,
although you do occasionally see crossposting from one of the atheist
groups or some such. It's only when a non-scienfic claim makes the
transition to pseudoscience, where it is purported to be science without
really following the rules, that it becomes appropriate meat for this
newsgroup.
Eric Pepke INTERNET: pe...@scri.fsu.edu
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute MFENET: pepke@fsu
Florida State University SPAN: scri::pepke
Tallahassee, FL 32306-4052 BITNET: pepke@fsu
Disclaimer: My employers seldom even LISTEN to my opinions.
Meta-disclaimer: Any society that needs disclaimers has too many lawyers.
Jeff Dalton
>In article <CnsMv...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
>wrote:
>> But the skeptics in philosophy are those who argue that, for instance,
>> we don't have proper grounds for knowledge. Sci.skeptic seems to
>> be something else, namely skepticism about such things as parapsychology.
>> Is that right?
>
>You are correct. The word "skepticism" has been used to mean a number of
>different things over the years. Your description most accurately
>describes one of the oldest forms of skepticism, which nowadays sometimes
>goes by the name of "nihilistic skepticism."
Maybe it is called that by some, but in the ordinary philosophical
literature it's called skepticism. Consider, e.g., Christopher Hookway's
book of that title. I think calling it nihilistic is a bit prejudicial.
Anyway...
>This newsgroup is more about what might be called "scientific skepticism."
>This is one of the reasons why it is in the sci hierarchy and not in some
>other. It refers to skepticism about pseudoscientific claims, fringe
>science claims, and sometimes well established scientific claims as well.
>
>The newsgroup is not really supposed to deal with non-science at all,
>although you do occasionally see crossposting from one of the atheist
>groups or some such. It's only when a non-scienfic claim makes the
>transition to pseudoscience, where it is purported to be science without
>really following the rules, that it becomes appropriate meat for this
>newsgroup.
Ok, thanks for the explanation.
-- jeff
Boucher David
#
#In article <CnsMv...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
#|> In article <Cnr6w...@uwindsor.ca> bou...@server.uwindsor.ca (Boucher David) writes:
#|> >
#|> >There is a difference between skepticism and solipsism. In any case,
#|> >I personally don't think Feyerabend is worth arguing over -- one might
#|> >as well hold a debate on Free Silver, or whether or not phlogiston has
#|> >negative mass.
#
#Negative *weight*, not negative *mass*! Geez! How can you do
#your smelting right?
I guess I must have cut class on the day they covered properties of
phlogiston. I *knew* it would come back to haunt me some day. ;)
James J. Lippard
>In article <2nummq$m...@toves.cs.city.ac.uk> jam...@cs.city.ac.uk (Michael Jampel) writes:
>>Yup. `Against Method' is a load of rubbish. Refute that statement
>>without using any of the Methods of which Feyerabend disapproves.
He doesn't disapprove of any method, by my reading. "Anything goes" is
his slogan.
[deletions]
>>[Unless you re-interpret it and weaken it enough, in which case it
>>becomes trivially (banal-ly, if that word exists) true.]
>
>It looks to me like it's full of stuff that's neither trivially
>true nor self-refuting rubbish, for instance his account of how
>Galileo's views prevailed.
But his account does leave out some important information. See the
rebuttal to Feyerabend on this issue in Philip Kitcher's _The Advancement
of Science_ (1993, Oxford), pp. 227-233.
Jim Lippard Lip...@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy Lip...@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Carl J Lydick
=In article <pepke-060...@pepkemac.scri.fsu.edu> pe...@scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) writes:
=>In article <CnsMv...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
=>wrote:
=>> But the skeptics in philosophy are those who argue that, for instance,
=>> we don't have proper grounds for knowledge. Sci.skeptic seems to
=>> be something else, namely skepticism about such things as parapsychology.
=>> Is that right?
=>
=>You are correct. The word "skepticism" has been used to mean a number of
=>different things over the years. Your description most accurately
=>describes one of the oldest forms of skepticism, which nowadays sometimes
=>goes by the name of "nihilistic skepticism."
=
=Maybe it is called that by some, but in the ordinary philosophical
=literature it's called skepticism. Consider, e.g., Christopher Hookway's
=book of that title. I think calling it nihilistic is a bit prejudicial.
Why? Nihilism is a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth. What's
prejudicial about calling a form of skepticism that adopts that doctrine
nihilist skepticism? Or are you claiming that calling that particular form of
skepticism what it is is somehow prejudicial?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
William Denton
>has been decisively refuted.
Geez, I have to hear this just after I ordered his Philosophical Papers at
the bookstore! I read Against Method a little while ago and found it to
be one of the most fascinating books I've ever read. Who has written the
best refutation of Feyerabend's ideas? I'd like to read it.
--
----------
bu...@io.org This message has been certified by
Finger for PGP Public Key. the Swiss Vitamin Institute.
Michael Jampel
>Michael Jampel (jam...@cs.city.ac.uk) wrote:
>: It has been a while since I read Against Method, so some of what I say
>: may be inaccurate. Sorry.
>
>: 1. It is true that there is no scientific (or rational, or whatever)
>: way to distinguish science from pseudo-science.
>
>: 2. But it does not follow that such a distinction does not exist.
>
>: recall a quote along the lines of `Teaching school children chemistry
>: instead of voodoo / black magic is a form of intellectual fascism.'
>: This is such obvious rubbish [no, I will not / cannot back up that
>: opinion] that it casts doubt on any book which can contain it.
>
>Your example quote contradicts your claim that Feyerabend goes from 1
>to 2. It acknowledges the existence of a distinction between chemistry
>and voodoo. So at least in this instance Feyerabend is not claiming 2,
>merely reiterating 1 with what he considers a plausible explanation
>viz. that such distinctions are ultimately based on communal
>`prejudice'.
Sure there is a difference between voodoo and chemistry. There is also a
difference between sausages and lamb chops, but they are both meat.(*)
The fact that Feyerabend accepts the difference does not mean that he
is not claiming that they are of equal importance/truth/beauty.
(*) Sorry, I mean the opposite: Feyerabend can choose to differentiate
between sausages and lamb chops while still claiming they are equally
meaty. [This analogy has gone off the rails a bit; sorry.]
>I borrow his pejorative, although one could also perhaps use more
>positive terms such as consensus or agreement so long as they are
>divested of any rational underpinnings.
If `rational underpinnings' means `the standard scientific method as
attacked by Feyerabend and loads of other people' then you may be right.
If `divested of rational underpinnings' means `not even necessarily
consistent' then I don't agree that such divesting would be a good
move. Feyerabend specifically allows himself to contradict himself; no
matter how justified certain attacks on the scientific method may be, I
think it is not unreasonable to ban hypocrisy and self-contradicting
systems.
>The sway rationalism holds
>over our culture is such that terms which do not have some connotation
>of `brute force' are unacceptable as accounts of behaviour which does
>not involve explicit recourse to canonical systems of explanation. To
>the extent that we even infer such recourse not only where there is no
>behavioural support except post-hoc by way of justification but even
>where post hoc justification cannot be obtained. This I believe is the
>target of Feyerabend's point 1.
Sure, some people abuse the scientific method. Some people steal
property; that doesn't mean we should abolish the concept of property.
There are loads of instances where induction doesn't work; these are
_mistakes_ they do not prove the assertion "In all cases, something
proven by induction is automatically false." Of course, if the number of
mistakes is large, then maybe the methodology isn't much good and should
be abandoned. Fine, if you can come up with a method of answering
questions such as `What will the weather be tomorrow' which works better
than current meteorology (sp?) by all means tell us.
Michael
Michael Jampel
James J. Lippard <lip...@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> wrote:
> jam...@cs.city.ac.uk (Michael Jampel) writes:
>> Yup. `Against Method' is a load of rubbish. Refute that statement
>>without using any of the Methods of which Feyerabend disapproves.
>
>He doesn't disapprove of any method, by my reading. "Anything goes" is
>his slogan.
Good point; it's a fair cop, guv. I have two options; one is to point
out that if all methods are equally acceptable, they are all equally bad
(i.e. the result you get by applying the method can be ignored, because
one can always find another method giving the opposite result). So you
may be able to refute me opinion " `Against Method' is a load of
rubbish" but your refutation won't gain you many points if anything can
be refuted and anything can be proven.
Second option: just re-iterate my blind prejudice (but shouting this
time!) IT'S A LOAD OF BALLS!
Michael :-)
Jeff Dalton
>In article <CnuLu...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes...
>>In article <2nummq$m...@toves.cs.city.ac.uk> jam...@cs.city.ac.uk (Michael Jampel) writes:
>>>Yup. `Against Method' is a load of rubbish. Refute that statement
>>>without using any of the Methods of which Feyerabend disapproves.
>
>He doesn't disapprove of any method, by my reading. "Anything goes" is
>his slogan.
Another way to look at his "anything goes" it as the only rule that
doesn't have to be violated. So if we're trying to find methodological
rules that have to be followed come what may, Feyerabend says the only
one that will serve is "anything goes". For others, it will sooner
or later be better to violate the rule (better because violating it
will so more to advance science).
>>>[Unless you re-interpret it and weaken it enough, in which case it
>>>becomes trivially (banal-ly, if that word exists) true.]
>>
>>It looks to me like it's full of stuff that's neither trivially
>>true nor self-refuting rubbish, for instance his account of how
>>Galileo's views prevailed.
>
>But his account does leave out some important information. See the
>rebuttal to Feyerabend on this issue in Philip Kitcher's _The Advancement
>of Science_ (1993, Oxford), pp. 227-233.
A good suggestion. I was just looking at it again last night.
I'll try to say more about their accounts of Galileo when I reach
that point in my rereading of Against Method.
At the moment I'll just note that Kitcher takes Feyerabend's account
of Galileo seriously rather than treating it as a "load of rubbish".
-- jd
Jeff Dalton
>In article <CnusH...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>=In article <pepke-060...@pepkemac.scri.fsu.edu> pe...@scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) writes:
>=>In article <CnsMv...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
>=>wrote:
>=>> But the skeptics in philosophy are those who argue that, for instance,
>=>> we don't have proper grounds for knowledge. Sci.skeptic seems to
>=>> be something else, namely skepticism about such things as parapsychology.
>=>> Is that right?
>=>
>=>You are correct. The word "skepticism" has been used to mean a number of
>=>different things over the years. Your description most accurately
>=>describes one of the oldest forms of skepticism, which nowadays sometimes
>=>goes by the name of "nihilistic skepticism."
>=
>=Maybe it is called that by some, but in the ordinary philosophical
>=literature it's called skepticism. Consider, e.g., Christopher Hookway's
>=book of that title. I think calling it nihilistic is a bit prejudicial.
>
>Why? Nihilism is a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth.
If they're nilihists, you can come right out and call them nihilists.
But skeptics needn't be nihilists.
>What's prejudicial about calling a form of skepticism that adopts that
>doctrine nihilist skepticism?
It's not nihilism, it's skepticism. Tacking "nihilistic" on the
front is a way to put them in the "to be ignored" category without
engaging with any of their arguments.
> Or are you claiming that calling that particular form of
>skepticism what it is is somehow prejudicial?
If you were calling it what it is, and that was nihilism, you'd
call them nihilists. But you don't. What you're trying to do
is discredit them in advance by tacking "nihilistic" on the front
of the term that's normally used.
Why do you think, BTW, that Hookway's book _Skepticism_ is called
that rather than _Nihilism_?
-- jeff
Jeff Dalton
>In article <CnsMv...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, Jeff Dalton <je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk>
>wrote:
>>In any case, you confirm my impression that people think Feyerabend
>>has been decisively refuted.
>
>Geez, I have to hear this just after I ordered his Philosophical Papers at
>the bookstore! I read Against Method a little while ago and found it to
>be one of the most fascinating books I've ever read. Who has written the
>best refutation of Feyerabend's ideas? I'd like to read it.
A good question. I'd also like to know.
-- jeff
Jeff Dalton
>Andrew Dinn <and...@cee.hw.ac.uk> wrote:
>>Michael Jampel (jam...@cs.city.ac.uk) wrote:
>>: It has been a while since I read Against Method, so some of what I say
>>: may be inaccurate. Sorry.
>>
>>: 1. It is true that there is no scientific (or rational, or whatever)
>>: way to distinguish science from pseudo-science.
>>
>>: 2. But it does not follow that such a distinction does not exist.
>>
>>: So I think that Feyerabend goes from 1. to 2. incorrectly. I seem to
>>: recall a quote along the lines of `Teaching school children chemistry
>>: instead of voodoo / black magic is a form of intellectual fascism.'
>>: This is such obvious rubbish [no, I will not / cannot back up that
>>: opinion] that it casts doubt on any book which can contain it.
Which books is it? Where is it said? I'm not saying "prove it",
I'd just like to know so I can look at it in context.
[...]
>Feyerabend specifically allows himself to contradict himself;
Do you have a reference?
>no matter how justified certain attacks on the scientific method may be, I
>think it is not unreasonable to ban hypocrisy and self-contradicting
>systems.
Feyerabend doesn't have a system, so far as I can tell. However,
he would probably defend self-contradictory systems as being a way
to make progress in some cases. Note that even when consistency
is a goal it may not yet be clear which side of the contradiction
should give way.
Jeff Dalton
>
>James J. Lippard <lip...@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> wrote:
>
>> jam...@cs.city.ac.uk (Michael Jampel) writes:
>>> Yup. `Against Method' is a load of rubbish. Refute that statement
>>>without using any of the Methods of which Feyerabend disapproves.
>>
>>He doesn't disapprove of any method, by my reading. "Anything goes" is
>>his slogan.
>
>Good point; it's a fair cop, guv. I have two options; one is to point
>out that if all methods are equally acceptable, they are all equally bad
>(i.e. the result you get by applying the method can be ignored, because
>one can always find another method giving the opposite result).
Do you think this is Feyerabend's view: that all methods are equally
acceptable? I want to make sure I understand what you're saying.
Anyway, Feyerabend spends a fair amount of time looking at what
scientists have actually done and pointing out when they've made
progress by violating various rules. In such cases, he's saying that
it worked better to (for example) move counter-inductively rather than
inductively. At these points, at least, he's not claiming that all
methods are equally good -- for that particular purpose and at that
particular time.
>So you
>may be able to refute me opinion " `Against Method' is a load of
>rubbish" but your refutation won't gain you many points if anything can
>be refuted and anything can be proven.
AM is a fairly long book. That some of it is rubbish, or that some
sort of overall view extracted from it is rubbish, wouldn't mean that
there was nothing good in it.
In general, I think it's wrong to make the question be whether
Feyerabend is right, or whather AM is right, treated as a sort
of unified whole. Most people, and books, are right about some
things and wrong about others.
-- jd
Neil Rickert
>In article <2o12cb$2...@toves.cs.city.ac.uk> jam...@cs.city.ac.uk (Michael Jampel) writes:
>>James J. Lippard <lip...@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> wrote:
>>> jam...@cs.city.ac.uk (Michael Jampel) writes:
>>>> Yup. `Against Method' is a load of rubbish. Refute that statement
>>>>without using any of the Methods of which Feyerabend disapproves.
>>>
>>>He doesn't disapprove of any method, by my reading. "Anything goes" is
>>>his slogan.
>>
>>Good point; it's a fair cop, guv. I have two options; one is to point
>>out that if all methods are equally acceptable, they are all equally bad
>>(i.e. the result you get by applying the method can be ignored, because
>>one can always find another method giving the opposite result).
>
>Do you think this is Feyerabend's view: that all methods are equally
>acceptable? I want to make sure I understand what you're saying.
My impression was that "anything goes" was intended more as a description
of what has happened, rather than a prescription as to how a scientist
should act. I didn't read him as recommending that each scientist
attempt all sorts of odd methods. Rather, I read him as saying that
controlling bodies (editors, peer reviewers, granting agencies) should
recognize "anything goes" as the only valid description, lest they
improperly interfere with a method that is actually working.
>Anyway, Feyerabend spends a fair amount of time looking at what
>scientists have actually done and pointing out when they've made
>progress by violating various rules. In such cases, he's saying that
>it worked better to (for example) move counter-inductively rather than
>inductively. At these points, at least, he's not claiming that all
>methods are equally good -- for that particular purpose and at that
>particular time.
Unless Feyerabend was deliberately tongue in cheek, his counter-induction
comments are nonsense. This is the point where he should have questionned
whether he (Feyerabend) had seen all the evidence. Perhaps it only
looked like counter-induction, because he didn't understand what was
really motivating Galileo.
>In general, I think it's wrong to make the question be whether
>Feyerabend is right, or whather AM is right, treated as a sort
>of unified whole. Most people, and books, are right about some
>things and wrong about others.
I though Feyerabend made a good case that traditional accounts of the
scientific method are missing something. He was not convincing in
suggestions as to what it was that was missing.
103t_e...@west.cscwc.pima.edu
believe that neuroscience and Connectionism has vindicated Feyerabend.
Lawson
DaveHatunen
>Christopher Biow (bi...@cs.umd.edu) wrote:
[...]
> Even unfalsifiable ideas that were NOT a part of some theories had
>psychological influence that "nudged" scientists one way or another.
>(i.e. Michaelson-Morley).
[...]
Which part of M-M was unfalsifiable?
GREGORY C.O'KELLY
>Yup. `Against Method' is a load of rubbish. Refute that statement
GREGORY C.O'KELLY
>Feyerabend doesn't have a system, so far as I can tell. However,
>he would probably defend self-contradictory systems as being a way
>to make progress in some cases. Note that even when consistency
>is a goal it may not yet be clear which side of the contradiction
>should give way.
Lakatos in Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge in his essay "Falsification-
ism and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes". To understand
Feyerabend and what he stood for, it is beneficial to read this essay.
GREGORY C.O'KELLY
>Unless Feyerabend was deliberately tongue in cheek, his counter-induction
>comments are nonsense. This is the point where he should have questionned
>whether he (Feyerabend) had seen all the evidence. Perhaps it only
support their ideas, are not theory independent, and that counter-induction
was more a reaction to what some might take unquestioningly as meta-theory.
GREGORY C.O'KELLY
> Actually, if you read your Paul Churchland, you'll find that some people
>believe that neuroscience and Connectionism has vindicated Feyerabend.
who, in her book Neurophilosophy discusses Feyerabend's responsed to those who
treat consciousness as an emergent quality of cerebral matter.
Jeff Dalton
Do you mean about eliminative materialism? (The view that got him
in trouble with Ayn Rand.)
BTW, the ref to AR that used to be in Against Method now seems to
be gone.
DaveHatunen
> The ether hypothesis... Read my statement you quoted very carefully. M-M
> were obviously influenced into performing thier experiment by the ther
> hypothesis. The ether hypothesis (by means of ad hoc arguments) is
> unfalsifiable.
The aether was very precisely described, right down to its permittivity
and permeability. The aether "wind" was, I believe, a part of that
description, so failure to detect it would falsify that particular
theory. I believe there have been subsequent postulations of aether
theories that would not have been falsified by M-M (or they woulen't
have been postulated in the first place).
Rationalizations such as the aether moving with the earth were
proposed, but they didn't really fit the theory.
I'll have to dig out my old copy of "The History of Electricity and the
Aether" and check it out.
Michael Jampel
> All in All the ether hypothesis (by means of ad
> hoc arguments) turns out to be unfalsifiable.
Question: does the earth move through the ether, or is it stationary
with respect to it.
Experiment one, which would have detected movement, turned out negative.
Experiment two, which would have detected non-movement, turned out
negative.
Conclusion: there was something wrong with the original question.
I.e. either a physical object moves with respect to another, or it
doesn't. If both attempts fail, then it can't be physical object i.e.
it doesn't exist.
So the existence of the ether is quite easily falsifiable, and was in
fact falsified.
I must admit that most things are not as easy to test as this, depending
on loads of assumptions in an `auxiliary belt' which tend to get the
blame, rather than the theory itself.
Michael Jampel
Jeff Dalton
>In article <laskaCo...@netcom.com>, Andrew Laska <la...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> The ether hypothesis... Read my statement you quoted very carefully. M-M
>> were obviously influenced into performing thier experiment by the ther
>> hypothesis. The ether hypothesis (by means of ad hoc arguments) is
>> unfalsifiable.
>
>The aether was very precisely described, right down to its permittivity
>and permeability. The aether "wind" was, I believe, a part of that
>description, so failure to detect it would falsify that particular
>theory.
But there was more than one suggestion as to why the wind wasn't
observed. So the either wasn't discredited directly.
>I'll have to dig out my old copy of "The History of Electricity and the
>Aether" and check it out.
Please do.
DaveHatunen
Jeff Dalton <je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <hatunenC...@netcom.com> hat...@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) writes:
>>In article <laskaCo...@netcom.com>, Andrew Laska <la...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The ether hypothesis... Read my statement you quoted very carefully. M-M
>>> were obviously influenced into performing thier experiment by the ther
>>> hypothesis. The ether hypothesis (by means of ad hoc arguments) is
>>> unfalsifiable.
>>
>>The aether was very precisely described, right down to its permittivity
>>and permeability. The aether "wind" was, I believe, a part of that
>>description, so failure to detect it would falsify that particular
>>theory.
>
>But there was more than one suggestion as to why the wind wasn't
>observed. So the either wasn't discredited directly.
Those explanations were post hoc, and an attempt to bandage up the
falsified theory of the aether. I don't suppose you'd care to be
specific about the precise parts of the theory of the aether -- pre
Michaelson-Morley -- that were unfalsifiable?
Personal trivia: in prep school my dorm was Morley's original lab
building on the original Western Reserve University campus in Hudson
OH. (I said it was trivia.)
Jeff Dalton
>In article <Co3uq...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>,
>Jeff Dalton <je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>In article <hatunenC...@netcom.com> hat...@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) writes:
>>>In article <laskaCo...@netcom.com>, Andrew Laska <la...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The ether hypothesis... Read my statement you quoted very carefully. M-M
>>>> were obviously influenced into performing thier experiment by the ther
>>>> hypothesis. The ether hypothesis (by means of ad hoc arguments) is
>>>> unfalsifiable.
>>>
>>>The aether was very precisely described, right down to its permittivity
>>>and permeability. The aether "wind" was, I believe, a part of that
>>>description, so failure to detect it would falsify that particular
>>>theory.
>>
>>But there was more than one suggestion as to why the wind wasn't
>>observed. So the either wasn't discredited directly.
>
>Those explanations were post hoc, and an attempt to bandage up the
>falsified theory of the aether.
How can it be falsified when other explanations are still possible?
Carl J Lydick
=>>But there was more than one suggestion as to why the wind wasn't
=>>observed. So the either wasn't discredited directly.
=>
=>Those explanations were post hoc, and an attempt to bandage up the
=>falsified theory of the aether.
=
=How can it be falsified when other explanations are still possible?
Easy: The original theory was falsified. Those post hoc explanations
constitute a different theory.
David Gudeman
]In article <hatunenC...@netcom.com> hat...@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) writes:
]>In article <Co3uq...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>,
]>Jeff Dalton <je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
]>>But there was more than one suggestion as to why the wind wasn't
]>>observed. So the either wasn't discredited directly.
]>
]>Those explanations were post hoc, and an attempt to bandage up the
]>falsified theory of the aether.
]How can it be falsified when other explanations are still possible?
That depends on what you mean by "falsified". Popper draws
a distinction between "falsification" and "falsifiability": one of
these words refers to a logical proof that a theory is wrong (and this
can't be done for empirical theories) and the other refers to
scientific methodological decision that a theory is wrong. I don't
recall which is which.
As you observe, the theory of the aether was never proven to be
logically impossible. It was falsified only in the sense that
scientists agreed that the theory predicted that certain events should
be observed under certain conditions, and they found that this
prediction was not fulfilled.
Popper holds that for a theory to be "scientific", it must come with a
set of possible events that would falsify it, and that this is
something that cannot be rigorously, logically defined. Although I
doubt that Popper would agree with this, his doctrine amounts to the
idea that science is a social/political phenomenon rather than a
process of reasoning from observation.
DaveHatunen
Jeff Dalton <je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
[...]
>How can it be falsified when other explanations are still possible?
If the original theory is falsified, and you patch it up with a new
explanation, then you have a new, and different (but related) theory.
Now which parts of the original theory of the aether that M-M were
working to were unfalsifiable?
If you like, which parts of subsequent theories of the aether are
unfalsifiable (but couldn't have been falsified by M-M because the
theory didn't exist yet)?
But please answer the first question first.
You know us foolish people who majored in the hard sciences -- always
getting pesky about details, details, details.
DaveHatunen
David Gudeman <gud...@cs.arizona.edu> wrote:
[...]
>As you observe, the theory of the aether was never proven to be
>logically impossible. It was falsified only in the sense that
>scientists agreed that the theory predicted that certain events should
>be observed under certain conditions, and they found that this
>prediction was not fulfilled.
Now let me get this straight. The theory of the aether described
certain physical aspects of the aether which would require certain
observational results. Those results were not obtained, therefore the
theory must be invalid (I presume) but that doesn't falsify the theory?
Are we using the same language?
No wonder I have trouble with Philosphy of Science.
Actually, the theory was already showing bad observational results by
teh time Michelson and Morley set up their interferometer, and they
sort of put the nails in the coffin. The idea that the aether moved
with the earth, for instance, caused real problems with distant
observations, and required some sort of equation describing how
stationary it was with respect to the earth at what elevation, and did
it rotate with the earth.
David Gudeman
]>As you observe, the theory of the aether was never proven to be
]>logically impossible. It was falsified only in the sense that
]>scientists agreed that the theory predicted that certain events should
]>be observed under certain conditions, and they found that this
]>prediction was not fulfilled.
]Now let me get this straight. The theory of the aether described
]certain physical aspects of the aether which would require certain
]observational results. Those results were not obtained, therefore the
]theory must be invalid (I presume) but that doesn't falsify the theory?
Right. In fact, it has happened many times in history that
(1) a theory required certain observational results
(2) those results were proven wrong
(3) the theory was not considered to be falsified
Take Newton's theories of motion and gravity for example. It did not
accurately describe the motion of the moon, but Newton did not give it
up. Instead, he waited for a more accurate estimation of the diameter
of the earth and tried again. Similarly, it did not accurately
predict the motion of the outer planets. Instead of falsifying the
theory, this was taken as as showing the existence of another planet,
as yet unobserved. This led to a search for the planet. Newton's
theory did not account for the motion of Mecury. That was just
ignored for a long time.
The point is that when the predictions of a theory are found to be
wrong, you can either reject the theory or invent further theories
about why the prediction was found to be wrong. There is no
systematic, logical way to decide which way to go, and the choice is
ultimately based on the prejudices of the scientists. In fact, I'm
going to go out on a limb and guess that you probably cannot come up
with a single theory in the history of science that did not have this
happen at least once.
]Are we using the same language?
Probably not.
]No wonder I have trouble with Philosphy of Science.
You might have less trouble if you took some time to study it.
]Actually, the theory was already showing bad observational results by
]teh time Michelson and Morley set up their interferometer, and they
]sort of put the nails in the coffin. The idea that the aether moved
]with the earth, for instance, caused real problems with distant
]observations, and required some sort of equation describing how
]stationary it was with respect to the earth at what elevation, and did
]it rotate with the earth.
There were, as I recall, about 4 different theories that would make
the theory of aether consistent with the Michelson Morley expreriment.
These theories were eventually rejected as a matter taste, not as a
matter of logic.
DaveHatunen
>]Now let me get this straight. The theory of the aether described
>]certain physical aspects of the aether which would require certain
>]observational results. Those results were not obtained, therefore the
>]theory must be invalid (I presume) but that doesn't falsify the theory?
>
>Right. In fact, it has happened many times in history that
>
> (1) a theory required certain observational results
>
> (2) those results were proven wrong
>
> (3) the theory was not considered to be falsified
>
>Take Newton's theories of motion and gravity for example. It did not
>accurately describe the motion of the moon, but Newton did not give it
>up. Instead, he waited for a more accurate estimation of the diameter
>of the earth and tried again. Similarly, it did not accurately
>predict the motion of the outer planets. Instead of falsifying the
>theory, this was taken as as showing the existence of another planet,
>as yet unobserved. This led to a search for the planet. Newton's
>theory did not account for the motion of Mecury. That was just
>ignored for a long time.
I don't think this is quite the same as the problem with the aether,
but I see your point. However, adding in another planet, or correcting
the mass of the earth aren't readjustments of the threory, but of the
experimental conditions. In other words, the experiment wasn't
conclusive because it wasn't a good one. In the case of the aether, the
results were conclusively bad. I would hatge to see the one situation
confused with the other simply because of the similarities.
>The point is that when the predictions of a theory are found to be
>wrong, you can either reject the theory or invent further theories
>about why the prediction was found to be wrong.
You left out the third choice: refine the experiment. You are presuming
the theory is wrong because the experiment didn't accord with the
theory. It's the experiment that's wrong, not the theory. All the new
planets in the universe never altered Newton's basic equations. The
precession of Mercury did, in the limiting case, but that's not a
falsification of Newtons gravity equations.
[...]
>]No wonder I have trouble with Philosphy of Science.
>
>You might have less trouble if you took some time to study it.
I used up my time studying Science instead.
>There were, as I recall, about 4 different theories that would make
>the theory of aether consistent with the Michelson Morley expreriment.
>These theories were eventually rejected as a matter taste, not as a
>matter of logic.
Oh, really. Care to cite them? Unfortunately, the ones that permitted
M-M's results contradicted other observations. Except, of course, the
work that lead to Special Relativity.
If you know differently, please be specific.
KTDK-kurssi (14)
contained most curious accusations about him.
If I can remember correctly, some-one said that Feyerabend claimed that there
was no distinction between science and magic etc.; the same person claimed,
that Feyerabend had written that to teach children science instead of magic
etc. is a form of intellectual fascism, and the writter expressed that he
considered this to be rubbish. I also noticed that some-one expressed his
conviction that Against Method was, in effect, BULLSHIT (I don't remember the
exact words, but this is what he seems to have meant.)
Being somewhat familiar with the work of Paul Feyerabend, I find all of the
above accusations to be incorrect: Feyerabend never claimed that no
distinction existed, neither was the second claim never made by him.
That leaves the conviction that Against Method is rubbish or something like
that. I wonder to what the persons who hold that conviction base their
conviction? Rumours? The canonized strawman some set up for easy refutation?
Careless reading of Feyerabend? Misunderstandings of Feyerabend? It seems to
me that the above accusations or the conviction cannot be based of
Feyerabend's work.
PLEASE RESPOND!
Marko Toivanen
email: mtoi...@cc.joensuu.fi
Jeff Dalton
>In article <Co7Jz...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>=>>But there was more than one suggestion as to why the wind wasn't
>=>>observed. So the either wasn't discredited directly.
>=>
>=>Those explanations were post hoc, and an attempt to bandage up the
>=>falsified theory of the aether.
>=
>=How can it be falsified when other explanations are still possible?
>
>Easy: The original theory was falsified.
I disagree.
> Those post hoc explanations
>constitute a different theory.
That people thought the either would lead to A happening and not-A
actually happened does not falsify the theory. The "post hoc"
explanations show why the theory didn't imply A; they are not a
new theory at all.
Jeff Dalton
>Jeff Dalton <je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>How can it be falsified when other explanations are still possible?
>
>If the original theory is falsified, and you patch it up with a new
>explanation, then you have a new, and different (but related) theory.
You have a new theory only if you change the theory, not if you
only supply an explanation. Someone looks at a theory and says
"humm, if this theory is true, and I perform this experiment,
A will happen". Then the experiment is performed and A doesn't
happen. So is the theory falsified? Well, that depends on
whether the "someone" was right in thinking the theory implied
that A would be the result. An explanation can show that the
someone was wrong. This is not a change in the theory.
>Now which parts of the original theory of the aether that M-M were
>working to were unfalsifiable?
>
>If you like, which parts of subsequent theories of the aether are
>unfalsifiable (but couldn't have been falsified by M-M because the
>theory didn't exist yet)?
>
>But please answer the first question first.
It's not my claim (that it was unfalsifiable), so I'm not going to.
>You know us foolish people who majored in the hard sciences -- always
>getting pesky about details, details, details.
If we treat the simple falsificatin model as a theory, it's
been falsified.
Jeff Dalton
>In article <GUDEMAN.94...@baskerville.cs.arizona.edu>,
>David Gudeman <gud...@cs.arizona.edu> wrote:
>>Take Newton's theories of motion and gravity for example. It did not
>>accurately describe the motion of the moon, but Newton did not give it
>>up. Instead, he waited for a more accurate estimation of the diameter
>>of the earth and tried again. [...]
>I don't think this is quite the same as the problem with the aether,
>but I see your point. However, adding in another planet, or correcting
>the mass of the earth aren't readjustments of the threory, but of the
>experimental conditions. In other words, the experiment wasn't
>conclusive because it wasn't a good one. In the case of the aether, the
>results were conclusively bad. I would hatge to see the one situation
>confused with the other simply because of the similarities.
But how do we know the MM experiment _was_ a good one? Sure, it
looks that way to us now, but that's the way it always looks when
a new theory wins out. I think Lakatos is right to compare research
programmes rather than talk of cricual experiments and the like.
Your account in an earlier message is in accord with the Lakatos
approach:
Actually, the theory was already showing bad observational results
by teh time Michelson and Morley set up their interferometer, and
they sort of put the nails in the coffin. The idea that the aether
moved with the earth, for instance, caused real problems with
distant observations, and required some sort of equation describing
how stationary it was with respect to the earth at what elevation,
and did it rotate with the earth.
Anyway, how about some historical evidence? How long after the
MM experiment was the ether theory abandoned? The next day? What?
What alternatives were then preferred?
>>The point is that when the predictions of a theory are found to be
>>wrong, you can either reject the theory or invent further theories
>>about why the prediction was found to be wrong.
>
>You left out the third choice: refine the experiment. You are presuming
>the theory is wrong because the experiment didn't accord with the
>theory. It's the experiment that's wrong, not the theory.
Does that difference matter? After all, the experimental results
disagree with the theory and you don't reject the theory. You find
flaws in the experiment instead. So much for the idea that a
contradictory experimental result falsifies a theory.
>All the new
>planets in the universe never altered Newton's basic equations. The
>precession of Mercury did, in the limiting case, but that's not a
>falsification of Newtons gravity equations.
Why not?
Al Date
>Some time ago some post on Feyerabend were sent to this thread. Some of them
>contained most curious accusations about him.
>If I can remember correctly, some-one said that Feyerabend claimed that there
>was no distinction between science and magic etc.; the same person claimed,
>that Feyerabend had written that to teach children science instead of magic
>etc. is a form of intellectual fascism, and the writter expressed that he
>considered this to be rubbish. I also noticed that some-one expressed his
>conviction that Against Method was, in effect, BULLSHIT (I don't remember the
>exact words, but this is what he seems to have meant.)
Umm, I am sympathetic to Feyerbend, so don't get me wrong. But he
did say that the reason he flies in jetplanes instead of riding on
broomsticks is because he cant be bothered learning how to fly on
broomsticks, and he already knows how to fly on jets.
I get the feeling that he is a little whacko, but I cant help feeling
that this is healthy in both science and philosophy.
--Al Date
Carl J Lydick
=In article <2okavg$1...@gap.cco.caltech.edu> ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
=>In article <Co7Jz...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
=>=>>But there was more than one suggestion as to why the wind wasn't
=>=>>observed. So the either wasn't discredited directly.
=>=>
=>=>Those explanations were post hoc, and an attempt to bandage up the
=>=How can it be falsified when other explanations are still possible?
=>Easy: The original theory was falsified.
=
=I disagree.
=
=> Those post hoc explanations
=>constitute a different theory.
=
=That people thought the either would lead to A happening and not-A
=actually happened does not falsify the theory. The "post hoc"
=explanations show why the theory didn't imply A; they are not a
=new theory at all.
It seems that you want the definition of the term "theory" to become so vague
as to be meaningless. Not a terribly useful attitude, unless your goal is to
spew meaningless bullshit.
Alan Morgan
>Umm, I am sympathetic to Feyerbend, so don't get me wrong. But he
>did say that the reason he flies in jetplanes instead of riding on
>broomsticks is because he cant be bothered learning how to fly on
>broomsticks, and he already knows how to fly on jets.
>
>I get the feeling that he is a little whacko, but I cant help feeling
>that this is healthy in both science and philosophy.
Was a little wacko. He passed away fairly recently. Having taken
a class from him at Berkeley I will concur with the "a little wacko"
assessment. Quite a character.
Alan
----
EFI agrees with me 100% on matters of fact. The above aren't even close.
-----> Mail abuse to: al...@efi.com <-----
Keeper of the alt.tasteless theme song and part time evil genius.
a charuvastra
wrote:
> In article <hatunenC...@netcom.com> hat...@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) writes:
> >In article <GUDEMAN.94...@baskerville.cs.arizona.edu>,
> >David Gudeman <gud...@cs.arizona.edu> wrote:
>
> >>Take Newton's theories of motion and gravity for example. It did not
> >>accurately describe the motion of the moon, but Newton did not give it
> >>up. Instead, he waited for a more accurate estimation of the diameter
> >>of the earth and tried again. [...]
>
> >
>
> >All the new
> >planets in the universe never altered Newton's basic equations. The
> >precession of Mercury did, in the limiting case, but that's not a
> >falsification of Newtons gravity equations.
>
> Why not?
You might consider Thomas Kuhn's thoughts regarding the theoretical
commitments
physicists (and scientists in general) have to what Kuhn calls "paradigms."
Kuhn and Feyerabend seem to agree on the subjective, non-scientific
(whatever
scientific means) and ultimately arbitrary nature of paradigm commitment.
This
arbitrary and "irrational" aspect of scientific commitment results from the
fundamentally different world-views that scientists in different times and
traditions have. It is also in this respect that Kuhn and Feyerabend break
with
Lakatos: namely, Lakatos' research programme does not really exist for
Kuhn, simply because there is no continuity between each paradigm. At any
rate, that is what they say. Whether or not you believe it is another
question. But, in response to another posting, if all this jabber about
theories makes theories sound like bullshit, maybe its because they are. OR
maybe the scientific enterprise, (which I still believe in) is not as cut
and dry, a priori, or prima facie as the textbooks you read in college lead
you to think.
---And therefore as a stranger
give it welcome...
Michael Jampel
Jeff Dalton <je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> [someone wrote]
>
> Actually, the theory was already showing bad observational results
> by teh time Michelson and Morley set up their interferometer, and
> they sort of put the nails in the coffin.
>
>MM experiment was the ether theory abandoned? The next day?
How long after MM was the ether abandoned? Precisely the day that
Einstein's paper was published (ok, ok, give or take 6 months for
everyone to read it, understand it, etc) which was in 1905.
This is why I like Kuhn's ideas rather than Popper/Lakatos. Various
things caused anxiety (Kuhnian `crisis') about Newtonian mechanics and
about ether theories (Mercury's precession for the first, MM for the
second, etc etc). Repair-theories were advanced to deal with these
anxieties (existence of Vulcan, ether having a certain viscosity etc).
People were not especially happy with certain aspects of the repair
theories, but recognised that eg Newtonian mechanics was still a great
advance on no theory at all. (Indeed, men were put on the moon using
newtonian mechanics, not relativity -- check for yourself, the escape
velocity of the earth is 11km/sec ie 1/27000 of the speed of light)
So they were worried but that was all; until Einstein came along and
showed them (a) [most importantly] a theory which reproduced all the
successes of Newtonian mechanics (b) solved the anxieties, (c)
something elegant.
(b) includes accounting for MM, (c) includes acknowledging Maxwell's
laws, which of course were not around at the time of Newton, and
showing that the anxieties about light and motion were linked.
I think, personally, than you would be hard put to account for this in
Popperian terms. You _could_ use Lakatos, but only because it can be
moulded towards Kuhn's [IMHO correct] analysis.
Michael
DaveHatunen
Carl J Lydick <ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU> wrote:
>It seems that you want the definition of the term "theory" to become so vague
>as to be meaningless. Not a terribly useful attitude, unless your goal is to
>spew meaningless bullshit.
I guess that's what's been confusing me. Thanks, Carl.
Apparently, their theory of the Aether is: "There is an aether". While
my theory is what I find in the Physics books, and involves detailed
specifications leading to inevitable consequences, which turned out not
to be inevitable.
DaveHatunen
Jeff Dalton <je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>You have a new theory only if you change the theory, not if you
>only supply an explanation. Someone looks at a theory and says
>"humm, if this theory is true, and I perform this experiment,
>A will happen". Then the experiment is performed and A doesn't
>happen. So is the theory falsified? Well, that depends on
>whether the "someone" was right in thinking the theory implied
>that A would be the result. An explanation can show that the
>someone was wrong. This is not a change in the theory.
Let's not bandy words about here. The kludges were changes in the
theory. Physics does not deal in ad hoc rationalizations, and if I
implied such in any of my posts I am sorry. Any "explanation" of why a
theory doesn't work is, ipso facto, a change in the theory. This is not
necessarily true of explanations of why a given experiment doesn't
work.
For instance, Newton's gravitational equations hold (let's ignore
relativistic effects here, since the question was originally raised in
17th century terms). The prediction of certain orbits was not part of
the theory but an attempt to verify the theory. The fact that planetary
masses were assumed incorrectly would not involve the theory but the
verification. No change was made in the theory when mass corrections
were made .
DaveHatunen
>kurs...@joensuu.fi (KTDK-kurssi (14)) writes:
>Umm, I am sympathetic to Feyerbend, so don't get me wrong. But he
>did say that the reason he flies in jetplanes instead of riding on
>broomsticks is because he cant be bothered learning how to fly on
>broomsticks, and he already knows how to fly on jets.
You're kidding. And this guy was taken seriously in Philosophy??
>I get the feeling that he is a little whacko, but I cant help feeling
>that this is healthy in both science and philosophy.
Healthy??? How?????
DaveHatunen
Jeff Dalton <je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <hatunenC...@netcom.com> hat...@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) writes:
[...]
>>Now which parts of the original theory of the aether that M-M were
>>working to were unfalsifiable?
>>
>>If you like, which parts of subsequent theories of the aether are
>>unfalsifiable (but couldn't have been falsified by M-M because the
>>theory didn't exist yet)?
>>
>>But please answer the first question first.
>
>It's not my claim (that it was unfalsifiable), so I'm not going to.
Oops. I had to recover the thread to check this out, and you are quite
correct. It appears that an Andrew Laska made the original statement
about theories being intrinsically unfalsifiable that began this rather
long sub-thread. Unfortunately, his original post seems to have aged
off our server, and he does not appear to have engaged in a great deal
of further discussion. I may have wrongly asumed you were picking up
the torch for him.
Sorry. These threads do sometimes get confusing.
DaveHatunen
Jeff Dalton <je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
[...]
>Anyway, how about some historical evidence? How long after the
>MM experiment was the ether theory abandoned? The next day? What?
>What alternatives were then preferred?
Oh dear. With all your comments, I assumed you knew something about the
subject (the aether and the M-M experiment) and the method (real
scientists using their scientific method).
Jeff Dalton
That may be, but I also get the feeling he likes to have fun
with people. Anyway, that's one thing that remark about jets
suggests to me.
In any case, Feyerabend is entirely willing to defend things he finds
rather useless. For instance, in the Afterward to his _Three Dialogues
on Knowledge_, Feyerabend points out that he defended astrology, even
though he finds it uninteresting, because of the way it was attacked:
not by arguments and by examining the evidence but by out-of-hand
dismissal and appeals to authority.
-- jd
Charles Lane
>In article <hatunenC...@netcom.com> hat...@netcom.com (DaveHatunen)
>writes:
>>but I see your point. However, adding in another planet, or correcting
>>the mass of the earth aren't readjustments of the threory, but of the
>>experimental conditions. In other words, the experiment wasn't
>>conclusive because it wasn't a good one. In the case of the aether, the
>>results were conclusively bad. I would hatge to see the one situation
>>confused with the other simply because of the similarities.
>But how do we know the MM experiment _was_ a good one? Sure, it
>looks that way to us now, but that's the way it always looks when
>a new theory wins out.
Well, you can always go look at MM's published results; I'll even give you
a cite: Amer. Jour. Sci, Vol XXXIV, No. 203, Nov 1887, pp 333-345 "On the
Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether" Albert A. Michelson
and Edward W. Morley.
If they did what they said they did, and got the results they said they did,
it is quite convincing. The detail they give is sufficient to dispell any
doubt that they were mistaken in their techniques or conclusions. Sure, today
we can use lasers and get more precise results, but MM did a very credible job
even by today's standards. Before you make any more vague and general
comments on MM's work, you better go to the source and get informed.
[ stuff removed for brevity]
[damn...attributions got deleted here... sorry!]
>>>The point is that when the predictions of a theory are found to be
>>>wrong, you can either reject the theory or invent further theories
>>>about why the prediction was found to be wrong.
>>
>>You left out the third choice: refine the experiment. You are presuming
>>the theory is wrong because the experiment didn't accord with the
>>theory. It's the experiment that's wrong, not the theory.
>Does that difference matter? After all, the experimental results
>disagree with the theory and you don't reject the theory. You find
>flaws in the experiment instead. So much for the idea that a
>contradictory experimental result falsifies a theory.
There's a big difference between a slight discrepancy with a
theory (Mercury's perihelion shift in Newtonian gravity), and the complete
absence of an effect predicted by a theory (MM and ether drift).
Kindly note that there are several sources of perihelion shift that have
to be accounted for to isolate the ~40''/century effect from GR. There
is approximately 530"/century of precession due to (purely Newtonian)
perturbations by other planets, some (few"/cent) due to solar oblateness which
is difficult to measure directly, and a whopping 5025"/cent because of equinox
precession. It is not surprising that a small discrepancy, buried amid other
effects, some quite messy ,could be attributed to observational or
calculational error. The perihelion shift did not *contradict* Newtonian
gravity, but did point to the need to refine either the theory or the
observations. It took other GR tests to show that Newtonian gravity couldn't
cut it.
In the case of the MM experiment, their published data show (and their
paper says) that "The actual displacement was certainly less than the
twentieth part of this [the ether theory expectation], and probably less than
the fortieth part". It's a big discrepancy; hard to explain, hard to ignore.
Either the ether theory was very, very wrong or MM's experiments were very,
very wrong....and MM had a convincing set of measurements on their side.
So there's some data...now back to our regularly scheduled flame-fest.
--
Chuck Lane "I wish to God these calculations
Drexel Univ. Particle Physics had been accomplished by steam."
la...@duphy4.physics.drexel.edu --C. Babbage
Jeff Dalton
I am doing nothing of the kind, and you are becoming abusive and
obnoxious.
Quite simply, it is possible for someone to be mistaken about
the implications of a theory and it is possible to discover that
without having to change the theory. Are you seriously claiming
that this cannot happen?
Now maybe the ether theory did have to change. We'd have to look at
what actually happened, in detail, to find out. But it doesn't follow
automatically just because there are "post hoc" explanations.
Moreover, if we treat the falsification model of theory change as a
theory, we can ask whether *it* us falsifiable. If you say that a
theory changes and is falsified whenever an experimental result can be
interpreted so as to be consistent with the theory, so that the theory
can be retained rather than be falsified, you're in danger of making
the falsification model itself unfalsifiable, because whenever something
seemingly inconsistent with it comes along, you can say that really
falsification did happen after all.
You can easily convince me that the either theory did change
by providing some historical evidence. But if all you're going
to do is accuse me of having meaningless bullshit as my goal,
why should I or anyone else pay any more attention to you?
Jeff Dalton
>In article <CoIMx...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
>wrote:
>
>> In article <hatunenC...@netcom.com> hat...@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) writes:
>> >In article <GUDEMAN.94...@baskerville.cs.arizona.edu>,
>> >David Gudeman <gud...@cs.arizona.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >>Take Newton's theories of motion and gravity for example. It did not
>> >>accurately describe the motion of the moon, but Newton did not give it
>> >>up. Instead, he waited for a more accurate estimation of the diameter
>> >>of the earth and tried again. [...]
>>
>> >
>>
>> >All the new
>> >planets in the universe never altered Newton's basic equations. The
>> >precession of Mercury did, in the limiting case, but that's not a
>> >falsification of Newtons gravity equations.
>>
>> Why not?
>You might consider Thomas Kuhn's thoughts regarding the theoretical
>commitments physicists (and scientists in general) have to what Kuhn
>calls "paradigms." Kuhn and Feyerabend seem to agree on the subjective,
>non-scientific (whatever scientific means) and ultimately arbitrary
>nature of paradigm commitment.
I'm not sure that either of them thinks it's arbitrary.
Anyway, I see your point. However, I doubt DaveHatunen would agree
with you.
Carl J Lydick
=>=That people thought the either would lead to A happening and not-A
=>=actually happened does not falsify the theory. The "post hoc"
=>=explanations show why the theory didn't imply A; they are not a
=>=new theory at all.
=>
=>It seems that you want the definition of the term "theory" to become so vague
=>as to be meaningless. Not a terribly useful attitude, unless your goal is to
=>spew meaningless bullshit.
=
=I am doing nothing of the kind,
You most certainly are. You want the term "theory" to include something like
"there's a luminiferous ether." Note that your "theory" says absolutely
nothing about any properties of said ether. That renders it semantically null.
I.e., meaningless bullshit. Now, as soon as your theory starts saying
something about the properties of that ether:
1) It becomes falsifiable; and
2) It means that if it's falsified, and someone comes up with another
theory that predicts different properties for the ether, that new
theory is just that: A separate theory.
=and you are becoming abusive and obnoxious.
I don't suffer fools gladly.
=Quite simply, it is possible for someone to be mistaken about
=the implications of a theory and it is possible to discover that
=without having to change the theory. Are you seriously claiming
=that this cannot happen?
No. However, that was not the case with luminiferous ether: The theory made
predictions. The predictions were wrong. That means the theory was wrong. A
theory that made substantively different prediction is a different theory.
Eric Pepke
(KTDK-kurssi (14)) wrote:
> That leaves the conviction that Against Method is rubbish or something like
> that.
I am convinced that _Against Method_ is dada.
> I wonder to what the persons who hold that conviction base their
> conviction?
Partly on the statement by Feyerabend that he was a dadaist, partly on
comparisons to other dada.
Eric Pepke INTERNET: pe...@scri.fsu.edu
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute MFENET: pepke@fsu
Florida State University SPAN: scri::pepke
Tallahassee, FL 32306-4052 BITNET: pepke@fsu
Disclaimer: My employers seldom even LISTEN to my opinions.
Meta-disclaimer: Any society that needs disclaimers has too many lawyers.
KTDK-kurssi (14)
: In article <2p1i32$3...@engnews2.eng.sun.com>, Al Date <a...@Eng.Sun.COM> wrote:
: >kurs...@joensuu.fi (KTDK-kurssi (14)) writes:
:
: >Umm, I am sympathetic to Feyerbend, so don't get me wrong. But he
: >did say that the reason he flies in jetplanes instead of riding on
: >broomsticks is because he cant be bothered learning how to fly on
: >broomsticks, and he already knows how to fly on jets.
The passage occured in the context of argumentation between Feyerabend and
certain people conserning the possibility of rationally (in their sense)
justifying the above mentioned preference. It is absolutely no indication of
Feyerabend's own opinions, it is ment as an illustrative counterargument to
something. That is, he does not in fact say the "the reason..." etc., and to
think so is to misunderstand his argumentation and him.
:
: You're kidding. And this guy was taken seriously in Philosophy??
:
Unfortunately, he wasn't. What is taken seriously in philosophy as in anywhere
else, is dogmatism, conformism and irrationalism, including irrationalistic
rationalism. It is of course impossible for most of us to be as rational
rationalist or critical criticist or anything else that Feyerabend was,
and thus to appreciate him, but this fact is hardly an ARGUMENT against him;
it is only an indication of our limits. As is the above citation.
: >I get the feeling that he is a little whacko, but I cant help feeling
: >that this is healthy in both science and philosophy.
:
: Healthy??? How?????
:
One of the things he was was one of the most able, true critics of our time.
See above why to some this seems "little whacko". I wonder if ignorace and
narrow-mindedness is a good argument. Now I know why quasi-rationalists, like
the "critical rationalists" so annoyed Feyerabend.
Marko Toivanen
KTDK-kurssi (14)
: Was a little wacko. He passed away fairly recently. Having taken
: a class from him at Berkeley I will concur with the "a little wacko"
: assessment. Quite a character.
:
To be able to *not* uncritically conform, *is*, in a certain sense, wacko.
It doesn't help to get a good "professional reputation", and it makes people
think that one is wacko. Then again, Feyerabend was never after that sort of
thing, and I don't think he cared what those people thought about him.
To be able to question anything is wacko, too, in our quasi-secularized
western world (we've just changed the dogmas a bit here and there). Nowadays
the heretics, or the ones playing the part of a heretic for ethical reasons,
are not usually burned. But there are some efficient ways to handle them, and
some of them are common practices. One of them is to term them "wackos". Yes,
stigmatization is the name of the game. Thus, true criticism is a pretty
dangerous business, and that's why it's so rare.
Could you explain in detail why you agree with the "wacko" assessment?
I will concur with the "quite a character" assessment.
Marko Toivanen
Al Date
>In article <2p1i32$3...@engnews2.eng.sun.com>, Al Date <a...@Eng.Sun.COM> wrote:
>>kurs...@joensuu.fi (KTDK-kurssi (14)) writes:
>>Umm, I am sympathetic to Feyerbend, so don't get me wrong. But he
>>did say that the reason he flies in jetplanes instead of riding on
>>broomsticks is because he cant be bothered learning how to fly on
>>broomsticks, and he already knows how to fly on jets.
>You're kidding. And this guy was taken seriously in Philosophy??
>>I get the feeling that he is a little whacko, but I cant help feeling
>>that this is healthy in both science and philosophy.
>Healthy??? How?????
Umm, I guess my point is that truly great ideas in science and
in philosophy are usually so radical that they defy the common
wisdom of the time, and thereby cause the person who expounds
those ideas to be initially labelled a "kook."
So, admittedly, I am engaging in some "greatness by association"
illogic. But I think it is true that the conventional wisdom
of every given time has always been shown to be false, later on.
And I am equally convinced that the conventional wisdom of our
time will suffer a similar ignominious fate. So, I look to
"kooks" like Feyerabend for the really good stuff, the stuff that
eventually, ultimately shreds the conventional wisdom.
I feel the need to be on the front of the wave when the conventional
wisdom crashes, rather than have to pick up the pieces
after the house of cards has come down around me. Perhaps
some of you feel the same way, constantly searching for truth.
Maybe I should sit back and wait for consensus from minds
greater than my own, but I found Feyerabend's Farewell to Reason
to be *the really good stuff.* I am not qualified to
compare Feyerabend with every philosopher who ever put words
to paper. I am just a small flag blowing in
the philosophical winds, and should be content to lurk in these
auspicious intellectual heights.
--Al Date
Jeff Dalton
>Carl J Lydick <ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU> wrote:
>
>>It seems that you want the definition of the term "theory" to become so vague
>>as to be meaningless. Not a terribly useful attitude, unless your goal is to
>>spew meaningless bullshit.
>
>I guess that's what's been confusing me. Thanks, Carl.
>
>Apparently, their theory of the Aether is: "There is an aether". While
>my theory is what I find in the Physics books, and involves detailed
>specifications leading to inevitable consequences, which turned out not
>to be inevitable.
rather than find out what the theory actually was, and refute the
people who disagree with you that way, you imagine that they hold
some bizarre exptrem position and flame that.
Read Lakatos's account of the MM experiment and what he says about
"crucial experiments".
-- jd
Jeff Dalton
>Jeff Dalton <je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>You have a new theory only if you change the theory, not if you
>>only supply an explanation. Someone looks at a theory and says
>>"humm, if this theory is true, and I perform this experiment,
>>A will happen". Then the experiment is performed and A doesn't
>>happen. So is the theory falsified? Well, that depends on
>>whether the "someone" was right in thinking the theory implied
>>that A would be the result. An explanation can show that the
>>someone was wrong. This is not a change in the theory.
>
>Let's not bandy words about here. The kludges were changes in the
>theory.
How do you know? Have you looked at what the theory actually was
and at what happened to it? If so, why aren't you backing up your
flames with some nice, solid historical facts?
Again I recommend Lakatos's account in his Methodology of Scientific
Research Programmes.
> Physics does not deal in ad hoc rationalizations, and if I
>implied such in any of my posts I am sorry. Any "explanation" of why a
>theory doesn't work is, ipso facto, a change in the theory. This is not
>necessarily true of explanations of why a given experiment doesn't
>work.
I am not talking of explanations of why the theory didn't work.
I am talking about explanations of why someone mistakenly thought
the theory implied something it didn't.
>For instance, Newton's gravitational equations hold (let's ignore
>relativistic effects here, since the question was originally raised in
>17th century terms). The prediction of certain orbits was not part of
>the theory but an attempt to verify the theory. The fact that planetary
>masses were assumed incorrectly would not involve the theory but the
>verification. No change was made in the theory when mass corrections
>were made .
Just so.
Instead of changing the theory, they found a different way to deal
with the results. But predicting A and getting not-A is also the
way theories are falsified. My point is simply that it doesn't
automatically follow from getting not-A that the theory is
flasified, because other explanations of the not-A result are
often found instead.
Jeff Dalton
>Jeff Dalton <je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>Anyway, how about some historical evidence? How long after the
>>MM experiment was the ether theory abandoned? The next day? What?
>>What alternatives were then preferred?
>
>Oh dear. With all your comments, I assumed you knew something about the
>subject (the aether and the M-M experiment) and the method (real
>scientists using their scientific method).
I do know something about it, and the historical evidence supports
what I've said. Why don't you look at it and see for yourself?
Jeff Dalton
>In article <CoKnE...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>=>=That people thought the either would lead to A happening and not-A
>=>=actually happened does not falsify the theory. The "post hoc"
>=>=explanations show why the theory didn't imply A; they are not a
>=>=new theory at all.
>=>
>=>It seems that you want the definition of the term "theory" to become so vague
>=>as to be meaningless. Not a terribly useful attitude, unless your goal is to
>=>spew meaningless bullshit.
>=
>=I am doing nothing of the kind,
>
>You most certainly are. You want the term "theory" to include something like
>"there's a luminiferous ether."
No I don't. I'm talking about the actual theories around at the
time. If you're so sure I'm wrong about them, it should be easy
for you to cite chapter and verse in the historical record to
show just how far wrong I am.
>Note that your "theory" says absolutely nothing about any properties of
>said ether. That renders it semantically null.
It would, if that were my theory. But it isn't.
>I.e., meaningless bullshit. Now, as soon as your theory starts saying
>something about the properties of that ether:
> 1) It becomes falsifiable; and
> 2) It means that if it's falsified, and someone comes up with another
> theory that predicts different properties for the ether, that new
> theory is just that: A separate theory.
Look, I'm not arguing that the theory is unfalsifiable.
Nor do I disagree that if someone comes up with another theory it's
a different theory.
>=and you are becoming abusive and obnoxious.
>
>I don't suffer fools gladly.
>
>=Quite simply, it is possible for someone to be mistaken about
>=the implications of a theory and it is possible to discover that
>=without having to change the theory. Are you seriously claiming
>=that this cannot happen?
>
>No. However, that was not the case with luminiferous ether: The theory made
>predictions. The predictions were wrong. That means the theory was wrong. A
>theory that made substantively different prediction is a different theory.
Theories don't really make predictions, scientists do. Scientists look
at the theory and decide what "the theory predicts", but it's the
scientist who's determined what the prediction is, and the scientist
can be wrong about what "the theory predicts".
But that's only one reason why when an experimental result is other
than expected it doesn't necessarily mean the theory was wrong.
Carl J Lydick
=So, admittedly, I am engaging in some "greatness by association"
=illogic. But I think it is true that the conventional wisdom
=of every given time has always been shown to be false, later on.
=And I am equally convinced that the conventional wisdom of our
=time will suffer a similar ignominious fate. So, I look to
="kooks" like Feyerabend for the really good stuff, the stuff that
=eventually, ultimately shreds the conventional wisdom.
They're also the source of the really poor stuff: The stuff that's totally off
the wall and totally wrong.
=I feel the need to be on the front of the wave when the conventional
=wisdom crashes, rather than have to pick up the pieces
=after the house of cards has come down around me. Perhaps
=some of you feel the same way, constantly searching for truth.
You could equally-well end up buried in the sand.
DaveHatunen
Jeff Dalton <je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>No I don't. I'm talking about the actual theories around at the
>time. If you're so sure I'm wrong about them, it should be easy
>for you to cite chapter and verse in the historical record to
>show just how far wrong I am.
I have the theories at hand, but it will be difficult to show what you
are wrong about until you say something specific that can be looked up.
First we need you to cite chapter and verse abut what you assume those
theories say. I have no intention of wrtiting a complete history here.
So just what is it you're saying that you want us to show is wrong?
>>Note that your "theory" says absolutely nothing about any properties of
>>said ether. That renders it semantically null.
>
>It would, if that were my theory. But it isn't.
True. So far you don't have any theory. Which is what he meant.
>>I.e., meaningless bullshit. Now, as soon as your theory starts saying
>>something about the properties of that ether:
>> 1) It becomes falsifiable; and
>> 2) It means that if it's falsified, and someone comes up with another
>> theory that predicts different properties for the ether, that new
>> theory is just that: A separate theory.
>
>Look, I'm not arguing that the theory is unfalsifiable.
>
>Nor do I disagree that if someone comes up with another theory it's
>a different theory.
Then perhaps you need to restate just what your point is. I have to
confess you've lost me.
[...]
>Theories don't really make predictions, scientists do. Scientists look
>at the theory and decide what "the theory predicts", but it's the
>scientist who's determined what the prediction is, and the scientist
>can be wrong about what "the theory predicts".
You may have a misunderstanding about scientific prediction. In
Physics, at least, and the lumeniferous aether was Physics, no one had
to decide a prediction: the mathematics of the theory automatically
does that.
Please state your theory (or the theory as you understood it to have
been) so we can figure out what the hell you're talking about.
DaveHatunen
>Umm, I guess my point is that truly great ideas in science and
>in philosophy are usually so radical that they defy the common
>wisdom of the time, and thereby cause the person who expounds
>those ideas to be initially labelled a "kook."
Could you be a little more specific? I mean, who labelled Einstein a
"kook" (besides Hitler, that is)? Or Newton? I'd certainly appreciate
some examples of this, because I think statements like that belong in
alt.folklore.urban, not here.
Regarding scientists, that is.
When it comes to philosophers I lean a lot toward extensivce
use of the label "kook".
[...]
DaveHatunen
Jeff Dalton <je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
[...]
>I do know something about it, and the historical evidence supports
>what I've said. Why don't you look at it and see for yourself?
>
I've got the history right here. <A History of the Theories of Aether &
Electricity> by Sir Edmund Whittaker. Two volumes of sometimes dense
mathematics with some enlightening accompanying text. Also available in
a single volume Dover edition.
Now, what is it I'm supposed to look for? Just what is it you said
that these volumes will support?
Or would you rather just pick up a copy for yourself?
Maurizio MORABITO; Tel.6661
-:>Note that your "theory" says absolutely nothing about any properties of
-:>said ether. That renders it semantically null.
-:
-:It would, if that were my theory. But it isn't.
-:
My inconsistent brain cannot understand this answer.Please explain...
-:>=without having to change the theory. Are you seriously claiming
-:>=that this cannot happen?
-:>
-:>No. However, that was not the case with luminiferous ether: The theory made
-:>predictions. The predictions were wrong. That means the theory was wrong. A
-:>theory that made substantively different prediction is a different theory.
-:
-:Theories don't really make predictions, scientists do. Scientists look
-:at the theory and decide what "the theory predicts", but it's the
-:scientist who's determined what the prediction is, and the scientist
-:can be wrong about what "the theory predicts".
A theory has to seem coherent with known data and with itself, and has to
predict some new phenomenon really to show it is a theory and it is not only
a logical explanation of known (therefore 'old') data.
-:
-:But that's only one reason why when an experimental result is other
-:than expected it doesn't necessarily mean the theory was wrong.
-:
-:
It seems you aren't understanding the main problem is your example about
the ether! Of course, vague statements are widely accepted.
maurizio
Michael Jampel
>So, admittedly, I am engaging in some "greatness by association"
>illogic. But I think it is true that the conventional wisdom
>of every given time has always been shown to be false, later on.
No flames meant by the following:
Well, yes and no. It _might_ be true that people such as Newton
effectively said ``Everything you previously thought you knew, is
wrong'', but nowadays that doesn't happen: Einstein said ``Newton was
right about 99.9999% of cases. My theory is also correct about those
cases, but also manages to be correct about the other 0.0001%''. If
Einstein is shown to be `wrong' in the future, what that means is that
he in fact is correct about the 99.9999% but only correct about
(99.9999% of the other 0.0001%) = 0.000099999% and the person who wins
the Nobel prize for showing that Einstein is `wrong' will do so on the
basis of 0.0000000001% of cases.
Don't get me wrong: I agree that Newton's theory _was_ false, but
scientific theories as used by scientists and engineers (but not by
philosophers) are about answers to particular problems, or classes of
problems. And while, epistemologically, Newton was false, in practice he
was close to the truth, inasmuch as he managed to explain lots of
observations. (Yes, I realise that you can't really be `close' to the
truth, just as you can't be close to being pregnant, either you is, or
you ain't.)
>And I am equally convinced that the conventional wisdom of our
>time will suffer a similar ignominious fate. So, I look to
>"kooks" like Feyerabend for the really good stuff, the stuff that
>eventually, ultimately shreds the conventional wisdom.
Yes; people who are brilliant at working inside the current system, and
so get made professor, may not be the best people to look for something
better, which copes with the 0.0001%.
>I feel the need to be on the front of the wave when the conventional
>wisdom crashes, rather than have to pick up the pieces
>after the house of cards has come down around me. Perhaps
>some of you feel the same way, constantly searching for truth.
Sure, I don't reckon that the current state of the art is absolutely
perfect, but I do recognise that, basically, it works quite well.
Modern medicine cannot cure all diseases, and I object to closed-minded
people who refuse to acknowledge the possibility of improvement, but if I
have a pain in the gut I will still go to see my (conventional,
thinks-he-is-god) doctor.
Michael Jampel
Jeff Dalton
>In article <Coo9q...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>
> -:>Note that your "theory" says absolutely nothing about any properties of
> -:>said ether. That renders it semantically null.
> -:
> -:It would, if that were my theory. But it isn't.
> -:
>My inconsistent brain cannot understand this answer.Please explain...
Someone is claiming that my theory has certain characteristics, and in
particular that it says nothing about any properties of the aether.
It's then claimed that this (not saying anything about properties of
the aether) renders the theory semantically null.
Now, it may well render _that_ theory sematnically null, but since
that theory isn't _my_ theory, it doesn't render _my_ theory
semantically null.
>A theory has to seem coherent with known data and with itself, and has to
>predict some new phenomenon really to show it is a theory and it is not only
>a logical explanation of known (therefore 'old') data.
Why does it have to predict something new to be a theory? Do you
really believe that?
> -:But that's only one reason why when an experimental result is other
> -:than expected it doesn't necessarily mean the theory was wrong.
> -:
>It seems you aren't understanding the main problem is your example about
>the ether! Of course, vague statements are widely accepted.
There are two issues being discussed: (1) whether aether theories
were falsified by the M&M experiment, and (2) various claims about
theories, falsification, etc in general. Now you have just made
a claim in (2), namely that theories must predict something new.
-- jd
Carl J Lydick
=>>No I don't. I'm talking about the actual theories around at the
=>>time. If you're so sure I'm wrong about them, it should be easy
=>>for you to cite chapter and verse in the historical record to
=>>show just how far wrong I am.
=>
=>I have the theories at hand, but it will be difficult to show what you
=>are wrong about until you say something specific that can be looked up.
=
=So unless I do all the work, you won't play. That's ok with me.
=Just stop posting on this issue and we can forget it.
No, idiot, he's asking that instead of playing your moronic guessing game
("There's something wrong with this, but I won't tell you what it is, you've
gotr to guess"), he's asking that you make specific claims. Otherwise he's in
the position of trying to guess what it is you think you're talking about, and
whenever he makes such a guess and gives a detailed answer, you get to weasel
out of it by claiming "That's not what I'm talking about."
=>First we need you to cite chapter and verse abut what you assume those
=>theories say. I have no intention of wrtiting a complete history here.
=
=I've already suggested that you look at Lakatos's account.
He asked you to be specific. C'mon, idiot: What are your SPECIFIC claims?
=>True. So far you don't have any theory. Which is what he meant.
=
=If you don't want to do anything with the historical evidence, then
=there's really no reason to continue the discussion.
Post your specific claim.
=>Then perhaps you need to restate just what your point is. I have to
=>confess you've lost me.
=
=Maybe so. But I've restated it several times already. Look at what
=I've already said.
=
=>>Theories don't really make predictions, scientists do. Scientists look
=>>at the theory and decide what "the theory predicts", but it's the
=>>scientist who's determined what the prediction is, and the scientist
=>>can be wrong about what "the theory predicts".
So you're claiming that there was a situation in which the scientific community
made a mistake in derivation of the logical implications of the theory. Please
cite the specific error, instead of continuing to post your vague and
meaningless bullshit.
=>You may have a misunderstanding about scientific prediction. In
=>Physics, at least, and the lumeniferous aether was Physics, no one had
=>to decide a prediction: the mathematics of the theory automatically
=>does that.
=
=Someone has to work out the maths. The maths, all on its own,
=does nothing. This is so obvious that I'm beginning to wonder
=whether you're even trying to understand me.
So, please enlighten us: To what mathematical error are you alluding?
=>Please state your theory (or the theory as you understood it to have
=>been) so we can figure out what the hell you're talking about.
=
=I've already suggested that you look at Lakatos. If you're not
=willing to do this, just say so and we can stop right there.
He's asking for a specific case. You're apparently simply too stupid to
distinguish between vague generalities and specific cases. Somehow, that
doesn't surprise me.
Carl J Lydick
=Someone is claiming that my theory has certain characteristics, and in
=particular that it says nothing about any properties of the aether.
=It's then claimed that this (not saying anything about properties of
=the aether) renders the theory semantically null.
I've pointed out that you have yet to make any statement regarding any specific
theory. All you've talked about is completely consistent with your idea of a
"theory of the ether" being "a luminiferous ether exists." In fact, a number
of your claims seem to be consistent with nothing but so vague a "theory."
=Now, it may well render _that_ theory sematnically null, but since
=that theory isn't _my_ theory, it doesn't render _my_ theory
=semantically null.
So what, pray tell, *IS* your theory? When you refer to a "theory of the
etheer," to what, specifically are you referring?
Jeff Dalton
>Jeff Dalton <je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>No I don't. I'm talking about the actual theories around at the
>>time. If you're so sure I'm wrong about them, it should be easy
>>for you to cite chapter and verse in the historical record to
>>show just how far wrong I am.
>
>I have the theories at hand, but it will be difficult to show what you
>are wrong about until you say something specific that can be looked up.
So unless I do all the work, you won't play. That's ok with me.
Just stop posting on this issue and we can forget it.
>First we need you to cite chapter and verse abut what you assume those
>theories say. I have no intention of wrtiting a complete history here.
I've already suggested that you look at Lakatos's account.
>So just what is it you're saying that you want us to show is wrong?
You've made claims, that the thepory was changed. So what was the
theory before and after the change? Just for instance.
>>>Note that your "theory" says absolutely nothing about any properties of
>>>said ether. That renders it semantically null.
>>
>>It would, if that were my theory. But it isn't.
>
>True. So far you don't have any theory. Which is what he meant.
If you don't want to do anything with the historical evidence, then
there's really no reason to continue the discussion.
>>>I.e., meaningless bullshit. Now, as soon as your theory starts saying
>>>something about the properties of that ether:
>>> 1) It becomes falsifiable; and
>>> 2) It means that if it's falsified, and someone comes up with another
>>> theory that predicts different properties for the ether, that new
>>> theory is just that: A separate theory.
>>
>>Look, I'm not arguing that the theory is unfalsifiable.
>>
>>Nor do I disagree that if someone comes up with another theory it's
>>a different theory.
>
>Then perhaps you need to restate just what your point is. I have to
>confess you've lost me.
Maybe so. But I've restated it several times already. Look at what
I've already said.
>>Theories don't really make predictions, scientists do. Scientists look
>>at the theory and decide what "the theory predicts", but it's the
>>scientist who's determined what the prediction is, and the scientist
>>can be wrong about what "the theory predicts".
>
>You may have a misunderstanding about scientific prediction. In
>Physics, at least, and the lumeniferous aether was Physics, no one had
>to decide a prediction: the mathematics of the theory automatically
>does that.
Someone has to work out the maths. The maths, all on its own,
does nothing. This is so obvious that I'm beginning to wonder
whether you're even trying to understand me.
>Please state your theory (or the theory as you understood it to have
>been) so we can figure out what the hell you're talking about.
I've already suggested that you look at Lakatos. If you're not
willing to do this, just say so and we can stop right there.
-- jd
Jeff Dalton
>Jeff Dalton <je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>I do know something about it, and the historical evidence supports
>>what I've said. Why don't you look at it and see for yourself?
>
>I've got the history right here. <A History of the Theories of Aether &
>Electricity> by Sir Edmund Whittaker. Two volumes of sometimes dense
>mathematics with some enlightening accompanying text. Also available in
>a single volume Dover edition.
>
>Now, what is it I'm supposed to look for?
Well, for one thing, changes in the theories that resulted from the
M and M&M experiments. Evidence that Lakatos is wrong would be nice
too.
>Just what is it you said that these volumes will support?
I didn't say _those volumes_ would support anything.
Carl J Lydick
=>No, idiot, he's asking that instead of playing your moronic guessing game
=>("There's something wrong with this, but I won't tell you what it is, you've
=>gotr to guess"), he's asking that you make specific claims.
=
=I've made them. What is the problem? 1. I've explained the general
=claim that when someone says a theory implies a result they can be
=wrong and that an explanation of where they went wrong does not
=necessarily constitute a change in the theory.
Now, please point out SPECIFICALLY where that applies to the falsification of
the theory of luminiferous ether.
=2. For the specific
=question of whether the M&M experiment falsified aether theories
=I referred to what Lakatos says about the M&M experiment in his
=paper methodology of scientific research programmes.
How about pointing us to a specific statement?
=My specific
=claim there is that he is right and the the aether lost out because
=it was a degenerating research programme and not because it was
=falsified by a decisive experiment. What more do I have to do?
=Type in the paper?
Type in the specific claim made in the paper. Many of us have, in the past,
wasted far too much time tracking down references that do not say what the
person who's posted the references claim they say. Tell us what the specific
claim you're talking about it, and where it is in the paper. Also, give us
some publication information on the paper.
=>=>You may have a misunderstanding about scientific prediction. In
=>=>Physics, at least, and the lumeniferous aether was Physics, no one had
=>=>to decide a prediction: the mathematics of the theory automatically
=>=>does that.
=>=
=>=Someone has to work out the maths. The maths, all on its own,
=>=does nothing. This is so obvious that I'm beginning to wonder
=>=whether you're even trying to understand me.
=>
=>So, please enlighten us: To what mathematical error are you alluding?
=
=I am not alluding to any mathematical error.
Try reading the paragraph you wrote and I quoted above.
=I am making the
=general point that people can be wrong about the consequences of
=a theory and hence about whether an experimental result falsifies
=it.
Ah, I thought you were claiming that there was a specific case you were talking
about. That's what peope have been asking you to do for the past several days.
But you're still merely spouting hypothetical bullshit, eh?
=I make the general point because other people seem to be
=denying it and basing other conclusions on that denial.
=
=Now, if everyone in fact agrees with me about this general point,
Nobody's disagreed with you on the general point. We're disagreeing with your
claim that that's what happened with regard to the theories of luminiferous
ether.
Carl J Lydick
=In article <2pgqe7$9...@gap.cco.caltech.edu> ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
=>In article <CotnL...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
=>=Someone is claiming that my theory has certain characteristics, and in
=>=particular that it says nothing about any properties of the aether.
=>=It's then claimed that this (not saying anything about properties of
=>=the aether) renders the theory semantically null.
=>
=>I've pointed out that you have yet to make any statement regarding
=>any specific theory.
=
=That's right. I have better things to do when there's already a
=written account (Lakatos's) that people can read.
Look: I've all too often gone off on wild goose chases trying to track down an
paper or book that allegedly supports a claim, but which does not, in fact
support the claim: Please, state SPECIFICALLY which claim you're referring to,
give sufficient publication information that the source you're citing can be
tracked down, and tell us WHERE in that source you think you've found something
supporting your position.
=But if you don't
=want to discuss his approach vs falsification, fine. I don't care.
If you'll ever get around to being specific rather than playing your infantile
guessing game, I'll look for the paper and comment. But until you commit to a
specific position, it would likely be a waste of my time.
DaveHatunen
Jeff Dalton <je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <IV001.94A...@ipinocio.nibh.go.jp> iv...@nibh.go.jp (Maurizio MORABITO; Tel.6661) writes:
>>In article <Coo9q...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>>
>> -:>Note that your "theory" says absolutely nothing about any properties of
>> -:>said ether. That renders it semantically null.
>> -:
>> -:It would, if that were my theory. But it isn't.
>> -:
>>My inconsistent brain cannot understand this answer.Please explain...
>
>Someone is claiming that my theory has certain characteristics, and in
>particular that it says nothing about any properties of the aether.
>It's then claimed that this (not saying anything about properties of
>the aether) renders the theory semantically null.
What they're saying is that you havenb't stated a single scientific
property of the aether that is part of your "theory", and that makes it
not a scientific theory at all.
>Now, it may well render _that_ theory sematnically null, but since
>that theory isn't _my_ theory, it doesn't render _my_ theory
>semantically null.
We're agreed then. You don't have a theory, nor do you care to cite
anyone else's.
[...]
>There are two issues being discussed: (1) whether aether theories
>were falsified by the M&M experiment, and (2) various claims about
>theories, falsification, etc in general. Now you have just made
>a claim in (2), namely that theories must predict something new.
No.
(1) is whether the aether theories en vogue at the time of the M-M
experiment were falsified by same. We have to use the plural,
"theories", since the concept of the aether had already fallen on hard
times well before M-M did their thing; it simply wasn't fitting the
empirical data very well.
Then there's (1a) the question of a few retro attempts to somehow come up
with a theory of the aether that would account for all the data (not
just M-M's). They were unsuccessful in meeting the requirements of
physical reality. Or they met the requirements so successfully that the
concept of the aether could be discarded as the underlying assumption.
As to (2), philosphical maunderings about the meaning of it all, it
would be better to deal with (1), since that was the cause of this
thread in the first place.
Now. Perhaps there is someone somewhere publishing tracts about their
perceived political implications of it, but one must always come back
to the fact that the luminiferous aether simply wasn't compatible with
physical reality as it was being observed, and that was before M-M.
M-M did not suddenly turn everyone around about the aether, but in a
sense they provided the last straw.
Jeff Dalton
>In article <CotKF...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>=>>No I don't. I'm talking about the actual theories around at the
>=>>time. If you're so sure I'm wrong about them, it should be easy
>=>>for you to cite chapter and verse in the historical record to
>=>>show just how far wrong I am.
>=>
>=>I have the theories at hand, but it will be difficult to show what you
>=>are wrong about until you say something specific that can be looked up.
>=
>=So unless I do all the work, you won't play. That's ok with me.
>=Just stop posting on this issue and we can forget it.
>
>No, idiot, he's asking that instead of playing your moronic guessing game
>("There's something wrong with this, but I won't tell you what it is, you've
>gotr to guess"), he's asking that you make specific claims.
I've made them. What is the problem? 1. I've explained the general
claim that when someone says a theory implies a result they can be
wrong and that an explanation of where they went wrong does not
necessarily constitute a change in the theory. 2. For the specific
question of whether the M&M experiment falsified aether theories
I referred to what Lakatos says about the M&M experiment in his
paper methodology of scientific research programmes. My specific
claim there is that he is right and the the aether lost out because
it was a degenerating research programme and not because it was
falsified by a decisive experiment. What more do I have to do?
Type in the paper?
>Otherwise he's in
>the position of trying to guess what it is you think you're talking about, and
>whenever he makes such a guess and gives a detailed answer, you get to weasel
>out of it by claiming "That's not what I'm talking about."
At least we're past the point where people simply make up positions
and say I hold them.
>=>You may have a misunderstanding about scientific prediction. In
>=>Physics, at least, and the lumeniferous aether was Physics, no one had
>=>to decide a prediction: the mathematics of the theory automatically
>=>does that.
>=
>=Someone has to work out the maths. The maths, all on its own,
>=does nothing. This is so obvious that I'm beginning to wonder
>=whether you're even trying to understand me.
>
>So, please enlighten us: To what mathematical error are you alluding?
I am not alluding to any mathematical error. I am making the
general point that people can be wrong about the consequences of
a theory and hence about whether an experimental result falsifies
it. I make the general point because other people seem to be
denying it and basing other conclusions on that denial.
Now, if everyone in fact agrees with me about this general point,
we can look at the historical evidence to see what actually
happened.
But does anyone ever say "look you idiot, the theory used to be X
but after the MM experiment it was changed to Y" or anything of
that sort? Nooooooooooo.
Jeff Dalton
>In article <CotnL...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>=Someone is claiming that my theory has certain characteristics, and in
>=particular that it says nothing about any properties of the aether.
>=It's then claimed that this (not saying anything about properties of
>=the aether) renders the theory semantically null.
>
>I've pointed out that you have yet to make any statement regarding
>any specific theory.
That's right. I have better things to do when there's already a
written account (Lakatos's) that people can read. But if you don't
want to discuss his approach vs falsification, fine. I don't care.
We can just stop talking about it.
> All you've talked about is completely consistent with your idea of a
>"theory of the ether" being "a luminiferous ether exists."
> In fact, a number
>of your claims seem to be consistent with nothing but so vague a "theory."
That's a pretty stroing claim. There's only one thing my claims
could be consistent with. Would you care to demonstrate that?
I thought not.
DaveHatunen
Jeff Dalton <je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <hatunenC...@netcom.com> hat...@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) writes:
>>I have the theories at hand, but it will be difficult to show what you
>>are wrong about until you say something specific that can be looked up.
>
>So unless I do all the work, you won't play. That's ok with me.
>Just stop posting on this issue and we can forget it.
Let me get this straight. You want me to scan in a whole two volume
history because you don't want to be specific about what you're talking
about? Or are you under the impression that the aether was
something easily covered in a short post?
>>>>Note that your "theory" says absolutely nothing about any properties of
>>>>said ether. That renders it semantically null.
>>>
>>>It would, if that were my theory. But it isn't.
>>
>>True. So far you don't have any theory. Which is what he meant.
>
>If you don't want to do anything with the historical evidence, then
>there's really no reason to continue the discussion.
What discussion?
You really don't understand this well enough to state what your
position is, do you? That's why you keep telling me to read someone
else's stuff.
[...]
>>Then perhaps you need to restate just what your point is. I have to
>>confess you've lost me.
>
>Maybe so. But I've restated it several times already. Look at what
>I've already said.
I don't beleive you have. In any case, most of us are stuck with
systems that remove old posts after a certain length of time. This is
just a fact of the Net. So it would be etiquette to restate your
position when the discussion begins to stray.
>>You may have a misunderstanding about scientific prediction. In
>>Physics, at least, and the lumeniferous aether was Physics, no one had
>>to decide a prediction: the mathematics of the theory automatically
>>does that.
>
>Someone has to work out the maths. The maths, all on its own,
>does nothing. This is so obvious that I'm beginning to wonder
>whether you're even trying to understand me.
Oh, I think I understand you quite well. You are confusing
"understanding" with "acceptance", a confusion my kids are guilty of
from time to time.
As I said, you know very little about Science, do you? Only what you
read in stuff written by non-scientists. It is you that lacks
understanding.
>>Please state your theory (or the theory as you understood it to have
>>been) so we can figure out what the hell you're talking about.
>
>I've already suggested that you look at Lakatos. If you're not
>willing to do this, just say so and we can stop right there.
I'll see if I can find it. Meanwhile, why is it you can't simply state
what it is YOU (not Lakatos) are trying to say? Or do you actually have
nothing of your own to say?
Is there a title and publisher for this Lakatos?
DaveHatunen
Jeff Dalton <je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <2pgqe7$9...@gap.cco.caltech.edu> ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>>In article <CotnL...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>>=Someone is claiming that my theory has certain characteristics, and in
>>=particular that it says nothing about any properties of the aether.
>>=It's then claimed that this (not saying anything about properties of
>>=the aether) renders the theory semantically null.
>>
>>I've pointed out that you have yet to make any statement regarding
>>any specific theory.
>
>That's right. I have better things to do when there's already a
>written account (Lakatos's) that people can read. But if you don't
>want to discuss his approach vs falsification, fine. I don't care.
>We can just stop talking about it.
Why on earth would we want to read Lakatos for a theory of the the
aether? Isn't he a philosopher? Why would he have a theory of the aether
a century after one was needed? I would think that he would have
theories about theories of the aether, but not theories of the aether.
We're looking for theories of the aether.
Does the word sophist have any meaning here?
Bruce Umbaugh
Michelson and Morley experiments in the turn away from a theory of
the aether, I think Jeff is right.
Helpful quotations follow . . . .
In article <2ph5on$i...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J
Lydick) says:
>
>Look: I've all too often gone off on wild goose chases trying to track down
>an
>paper or book that allegedly supports a claim, but which does not, in fact
>support the claim: Please, state SPECIFICALLY which claim you're referring
>to,
>give sufficient publication information that the source you're citing can be
>tracked down, and tell us WHERE in that source you think you've found
>something
>supporting your position.
I'm sympathetic to this complaint; it's a ubiquitous problem in
USENET discussions. Jeff would have helped things along a whole
bunch by giving some chapter and verse.
OTOH, in this case, I found what he referred to in under thirty
seconds. But I have the relevant Lakatos volume on my shelf,
and I don't suppose that everyone here reads much history and
philosophy of science.
>If you'll ever get around to being specific rather than playing your infantile
>guessing game, I'll look for the paper and comment. But until you commit to a
>specific position, it would likely be a waste of my time.
Again, I sypathize. Try Lakatos and Musgrave, eds., _Criticism and the
Growth of Knowledge_, Cambridge UP, 1970. The book came from a 1965
London symposium on Kuhn, chaired by Popper, and it features Kuhn's,
"Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research?" Toulmin's criticism of
the normal/revolutionary science distinction, Popper's criticism of
the notion of normal science, Masterman's famous catalogue of meanings
of "paradigm" in Kuhn's SSR, Lakatos' "Falsification and the
Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes," Feyerabends "Consolations
for the Specialist," as well as other papers and Kuhn's replies.
It's a good book, and a worthy addition to any library in philosophy
of science.
As for Lakatos, in particular, he discussed M&M expt on pp. 159-165.
He cites copiously from Nineteenth-century texts by Fresnel, Stokes,
Lorentz, Michelson, and Michelson and Morley. Also from 20th c. physics
(including Planck, Dirac, Einstein) on the issues.
Some relevant bits:
"But Michelson claimed that his 1881 experiment was a crucial experiment
[between Stokes' and Fresnel's theories] and that it *proved* Stokes's
theory." (159. Fresnel had an ether wind theory, Stokes held that
there must be ether drag. Those damn auxiliary assumptions getting in
the way of existence claims again!)
"Lorentz, the leading theoretical physicist of the period . . . showed
that Michelson 'misinterpreted' the facts and that what he observed
did *not* in fact contradict the hypothesis of the stationary ether.
Lorentz showed that Michelson's calculations were wrong . . . ." (159)
Michelson later rejected Stokes' theory, not for Fresnel's, but for
Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction. (161)
The M&M expt only came to be seen as a great negative result 25 yrs
after the fact. (161)
"The fact that we need hindsight to evaluate experiments explains
why, between 1881 and 1886, Michelson's experiment was not even
mentioned in the literature." The M&M expt was not mentioned in
presentation speeches for Michelson's Nobel nor in his Nobel Lecture.
(164. He was awarded the 1907 Prize for his *instruments*.)
Lakatos is highly regarded in philosophy of science. He knew history
of science well.
Back to regularly scheduled programming, already on fire. :)
--Bruce
--
Bruce Umbaugh bdu...@oduvm.cc.odu.edu
Dept. of Philosophy | Humanize the Internet: Ethernet
Old Dominion University | the Arts faculty.
Norfolk, Virginia 23529 USA | -- Peter Danielson
DaveHatunen
Bruce Umbaugh <BDU...@ODUVM.BITNET> wrote:
>If I've understood his claim about the role of the Michelson and
>Michelson and Morley experiments in the turn away from a theory of
>the aether, I think Jeff is right.
>
>Helpful quotations follow . . . .
>
>In article <2ph5on$i...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J
>Lydick) says:
>>
>>an
>>paper or book that allegedly supports a claim, but which does not, in fact
>>support the claim: Please, state SPECIFICALLY which claim you're referring
>>to,
>>give sufficient publication information that the source you're citing can be
>>tracked down, and tell us WHERE in that source you think you've found
>>something
>>supporting your position.
>
>USENET discussions. Jeff would have helped things along a whole
>bunch by giving some chapter and verse.
>
>OTOH, in this case, I found what he referred to in under thirty
>seconds. But I have the relevant Lakatos volume on my shelf,
>and I don't suppose that everyone here reads much history and
>philosophy of science.
>
>>guessing game, I'll look for the paper and comment. But until you commit to a
>>specific position, it would likely be a waste of my time.
>
Carl J Lydick
=>=I make the general point because other people seem to be
=>=denying it and basing other conclusions on that denial.
=>=
=>=Now, if everyone in fact agrees with me about this general point,
=>Nobody's disagreed with you on the general point.
=
=It has looked otherwise. For instance, Dave Hatunen wrote:
=
= You may have a misunderstanding about scientific prediction. In
= had to decide a prediction: the mathematics of the theory
= automatically does that.
=
=While this mentions the aether, it is making a general claim
=about theories in physics, and it was offered, so far as I
=could tell, as a refutation of my general point.
Yes. It points out that a scientific theory makes implicit predictions. Now,
it's possible, of course, for someone to err in attempts to make those implicit
predictions explicit. However, your posts have time and again denied that such
predictions are intrinsic to the theory. That's why a number of us are
convinced that you haven't a clue as to what constitutes a scientific theory.
Again, you're sounding like your idea of a "theory of the ether" is "an ether
exists."
=I have not been talking about some random "my theory" of the aether,
=a theory such as "the aether exists", despite being accused of this.
Just as a scientific theory implicitly makes predictions, so too do your
statements have logical consequences. Time and again you make statements whose
logical implication is that you consider something like "the ether exists" to
be a "theory of the ether."
Jeff Dalton
>Jeff Dalton <je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>In article <2pgqe7$9...@gap.cco.caltech.edu> ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>>>In article <CotnL...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>>>=Someone is claiming that my theory has certain characteristics, and in
>>>=particular that it says nothing about any properties of the aether.
>>>=It's then claimed that this (not saying anything about properties of
>>>=the aether) renders the theory semantically null.
>>>
>>>I've pointed out that you have yet to make any statement regarding
>>>any specific theory.
>>
>>That's right. I have better things to do when there's already a
>>written account (Lakatos's) that people can read. But if you don't
>>want to discuss his approach vs falsification, fine. I don't care.
>>We can just stop talking about it.
>
>Why on earth would we want to read Lakatos for a theory of the the
>aether?
You wouldn't. You would read Lakatos to for a historical account
of the interaction between the theories and experiment. This will
contain statements about specific theories.
>Isn't he a philosopher? Why would he have a theory of the aether
>a century after one was needed? I would think that he would have
>theories about theories of the aether, but not theories of the aether.
>We're looking for theories of the aether.
I cannot understand how this bizarre confusion can have arisen.
Neither I nor Lakatos has a theory of the ether. Why should we?
As you point out, it's a century after one was needed.
Look, I have no theory of the ether. Why should I? Why should
anyone, these days? So when someone talks about my theory they
are just confused. I have no such theory, therefore I cannot
have a theory with the properties they say my theory has.
Of course, they don't say "my theory", they say "your theory".
I say "my theory" in reporting what they have said. That is
why you can find an article, wirtten by me, in which the words
"my theory" appear, written by me.
Anyway, I suspect this nonsense started when Carl J Lydick wrote:
Note that your "theory" says absolutely nothing about any properties
of said ether. That renders it semantically null.
Such a theory would indeed be null. But I have no such theory
and have never thought anyone else had such a theory either.
>Does the word sophist have any meaning here?
You bet.
Jeff Dalton
>Jeff Dalton <je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>In article <2pgqe7$9...@gap.cco.caltech.edu> ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>>>In article <CotnL...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>>>=Someone is claiming that my theory has certain characteristics, and in
>>>=particular that it says nothing about any properties of the aether.
>>>=It's then claimed that this (not saying anything about properties of
>>>=the aether) renders the theory semantically null.
>>>
>>>I've pointed out that you have yet to make any statement regarding
>>>any specific theory.
>>
>>That's right. I have better things to do when there's already a
>>written account (Lakatos's) that people can read. But if you don't
>>want to discuss his approach vs falsification, fine. I don't care.
>>We can just stop talking about it.
>
>Why on earth would we want to read Lakatos for a theory of the the
>aether?
You wouldn't. You would read Lakatos to for a historical account
of the interaction between the theories and experiment. This will
contain statements about specific theories.
>Isn't he a philosopher? Why would he have a theory of the aether
>a century after one was needed? I would think that he would have
>theories about theories of the aether, but not theories of the aether.
>We're looking for theories of the aether.
I cannot understand how this bizarre confusion can have arisen.
Neither I nor Lakatos has a theory of the ether. Why should we?
As you point out, it's a century after one was needed.
Look, I have no theory of the ether. Why should I? Why should
anyone, these days? So when someone talks about my theory they
are just confused. I have no such theory, therefore I cannot
have a theory with the properties they say my theory has.
Of course, they don't say "my theory", they say "your theory".
I say "my theory" in reporting what they have said. That is
why you can find an article, wirtten by me, in which the words
"my theory" appear, written by me.
Anyway, I suspect this nonsense started when Carl J Lydick wrote:
Note that your "theory" says absolutely nothing about any properties
of said ether. That renders it semantically null.
Such a theory would indeed be null. But I have no such theory
and have never thought anyone else had such a theory either.
>Does the word sophist have any meaning here?
You bet.
Jeff Dalton
>In article <Cotv5...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, je...@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>=>No, idiot, he's asking that instead of playing your moronic guessing game
>=>("There's something wrong with this, but I won't tell you what it is, you've
>=>gotr to guess"), he's asking that you make specific claims.
>=
>=I've made them. What is the problem? 1. I've explained the general
>=claim that when someone says a theory implies a result they can be
>=wrong and that an explanation of where they went wrong does not
>=necessarily constitute a change in the theory.
>
>Now, please point out SPECIFICALLY where that applies to the falsification of
>the theory of luminiferous ether.
DaveHatunen claimed -- or so it seemed to me -- that explanations were
changes in the theory and that therefore (ie, because of this general
rule), they were theory changes where the M&M experiment is concerned.
My reply was in effect that this is not true in general and so we have
to look at the historical evidence.
Now, let's be clear about this. No one has offered any specifics
on the application of the general point to the aether theories.
No one has offered any historical evidence. My attempts to get
those on the other side to offer some have met nothing but abuse.
Your attempts to get me to offer some have resulted in me telling
you that I think the issue for the aether thories is the Lakatos-
style account vs the direct falsification model (which is a
different, though related, general point about theories) and
suggesting that you look at what Lakatos says. This has resulted
in more abuse and flames. Do you really think that's a reasonable
way to proceed?
>=2. For the specific
>=question of whether the M&M experiment falsified aether theories
>=I referred to what Lakatos says about the M&M experiment in his
>=paper methodology of scientific research programmes.
>
>How about pointing us to a specific statement?
How would you like it? Some page numbers?
In any case, will pointing accomplish anything? Will you read that
part of the Lakatos article and tell us to what extent it fits what
you know of the history of ether theories?
>=My specific
>=claim there is that he is right and the the aether lost out because
>=it was a degenerating research programme and not because it was
>=falsified by a decisive experiment. What more do I have to do?
>=Type in the paper?
>
>Type in the specific claim made in the paper.
I'm sorry, but I am not going to type in pages of stuff from a paper
that is widely available and well known to virtually everyone who's
interested in the philosophy of science when it looks like I'm going
to get only flames in response.
> Many of us have, in the past,
>wasted far too much time tracking down references that do not say what the
>person who's posted the references claim they say.
I'd like to know what you have to say about what Lakatos says, not
about what I say Lakaotos says. I really don't have much interest
in being right personally here.
>Tell us what the specific
>claim you're talking about it, and where it is in the paper. Also, give us
>some publication information on the paper.
Look up Michelson in index of the 1st vol of the collected Lakatos
papers. I can provide a more precise ref if necessary, but not right
now, because I don't have the book here.
>Try reading the paragraph you wrote and I quoted above.
Try understanding that when someone writes something on the net it's
not always clear to people who *have read it* what they meant. If
I've misunderstood you, do you think the best procedure is to flame
me rather than explain where I went wrong?
>=I am making the
>=general point that people can be wrong about the consequences of
>=a theory and hence about whether an experimental result falsifies
>=it.
>
>Ah, I thought you were claiming that there was a specific case you
>were talking about. That's what peope have been asking you to do for
>the past several days.
I know what they've been asking me to do, and I'be been trying to
explain what my actual position is. I am making this general point
to answer equally general claims. For specifics about ether theories,
I'm referring to Lakatos. If I haven't been sufficiently clear about
this in the past, let me be clear about it now.
> But you're still merely spouting hypothetical bullshit, eh?
No, I am answering a point. There have been general claims about
theories and explanations, and I have been addressing them as such,
or at least that was my intention. Perhaps I've failed to make this
clear.
>=I make the general point because other people seem to be
>=denying it and basing other conclusions on that denial.
>=
>=Now, if everyone in fact agrees with me about this general point,
>
>Nobody's disagreed with you on the general point.
It has looked otherwise. For instance, Dave Hatunen wrote:
You may have a misunderstanding about scientific prediction. In
Physics, at least, and the lumeniferous aether was Physics, no one
had to decide a prediction: the mathematics of the theory
automatically does that.
While this mentions the aether, it is making a general claim
about theories in physics, and it was offered, so far as I
could tell, as a refutation of my general point.
> We're disagreeing with your
>claim that that's what happened with regard to the theories of luminiferous
>ether.
Let me try one more time to make it clear what position I hold
on the ether theories. It is that the Lakatos account in terms
of progressive and degenerating research programmes is better
than the falsificationist account that sees the M&M experiment
as a decisive refutation. For specifics, see Lakatos.
It seems to be that we were having a perfectly reasonable discussion
up to a certain point when we were deflected into a useless flame war.
Perhaps this is my fault, I don't know, but let me give you an example.
DaveHatunen wrote:
I'll have to dig out my old copy of "The History of Electricity and the
Aether" and check it out.
And I replied:
Please do.
This was not a rhetorical "please", meaning "check it out and you'll
see that I'm right".
I have not been talking about some random "my theory" of the aether,
a theory such as "the aether exists", despite being accused of this.
I am talking about the actual theories. But I don't know for sure
that I'm right about the actual theories. I haven't looked into this
in detail for ages. And here are some people who have handy Dovers
in their hand, which I do not. Moreover, they are making claims
at least as strong as mine without giving us any of the historical
evidence they have ready to hand.
Now, given the current pointlessness of this discussion, I'm not
willing to type in what Lakatos says, so if you like I'm the pot
calling the kettle black. But my attitude would change if it
looked like something might be accomplished by changing it.
Anyway, I thought things were going well when Dave Hatunen
wrote:
Actually, the theory was already showing bad observational results by
teh time Michelson and Morley set up their interferometer, and they
sort of put the nails in the coffin. The idea that the aether moved
with the earth, for instance, caused real problems with distant
observations, and required some sort of equation describing how
stationary it was with respect to the earth at what elevation, and did
it rotate with the earth.
We could get somewhere from there, but not from where we are now,
if there's no interest in turning away from the flames.
(BTW, this is the first message I read today. If there are others
along similar lines, I'm not going to answer them as well. If the
authors of those messages feel that I have neglected an important
point in consequence, I will try to answer that point when they
tell me about it.)
-- jeff