Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!unido!sinix!es
From: es@sinix.UUCP (Dr. Sanio)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: sci.philosophy.objectivism
Message-ID: <900@athen.sinix.UUCP>
Date: 23 Jan 90 12:44:21 GMT
References: <1990Jan13.140242.14111@twwells.com> <9001140024.AA18363@apee.ogi.edu> <8P1157Gxds8@ficc.uu.net> <8250@portia.Stanford.EDU> <1990Jan17.083725.1215@twwells.com> <9001182300.AA28308@apee.ogi.edu> <10507@saturn.ADS.COM>
Reply-To: es@athen.UUCP (Dr. Sanio)
Organization: Siemens AG, K D ST SP4, Munich
Lines: 45

In article <10507@saturn.ADS.COM> xanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont Consultant Account) writes:
>In article <9001182300.AA28308@apee.ogi.edu> mehuld@APEE.OGI.EDU (Mehul Dave) writes:
>[...]
>>I think philosophy is most certainly a science and therefore it should
>
>The premier modern discriminator between science and non-science is
>that a science must produce hypotheses/theorems which are
>"falsifiable"; in the context of the current discussion, that means
>that if I produce _one_ instance in which your system/theory
>demonstrably fails, you will stop arguing with me that it is right, go
>away, and fix it.
>
>This is not a characteristic of any system of philosophy of which I am
>aware.  Instead, into the teeth of massive demonstrations of error,
>the true believers continue to espouse their "inerrant" faith.  Regard
>any discussion on the net for corroberation, the current one in
>news.groups, for instance.
>
Let me point out first that I share the opinion that the group xxx.philos.o'ism
doesnt fit into the sci hierarchy.
To the rest, I disagree. The criterion of "falsifiability" reflects the view
of just one branch of the epistemological discussion, that of positivism
(Popper et alii). Other epistemological schools share it only up to a certain
amount, or even reject it as less useful or even meaningless. In fact, the 
systematics of "science" and "arts" in the academic field existed long before
positivism. IMHO, falsification is an important access to academic reasoning,
as well in fields which are clearly not "science" (sociology, history etc), but
it isn't all even in "science". Try to apply it to medicine, psychology,
education, economy and you are doomed to failure.
>--
Concerning your "true believers" argument:did you follow the Beckmann discussion
in sci.physics or cold fusion arguments? I'm not expert enough to decide who
was right or wrong in all details, but in result I could say : "Hey, at least
one of the factions (or both) ignore massive demonstrations of error".
Read the history of science, and you will learn that ignorance and dogmatism
don't end at the borders of "science".
And, by the way, the criterion you cite as the decisive discriminator (falsi-
fiability) was developed in a "non-scientific" branch, sociology.
Any comments?
>Again, my opinions, not the account furnishers'.
So are mine
>
>xanthian@well.sf.ca.us  xanthian@ads.com (Kent Paul Dolan)

regards, es 		es@athen.uucp sanio@netmbx.uucp (Erhard Sanio)