I've been reading @DavidDeutschOxf on this subject. "No one has ever managed to formulate a 'principle of induction' that is usable in practice for obtaining scientific theories from experience" and "inductivism is false".
-
-
Replying to @Jayarava @DavidDeutschOxf
Yup. All existing general theories of induction are clearly false, and there’s strong reasons to think no version can work, a priori. OTOH, induction clearly often works in practice. So we also need an account of how and when and why.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
What I’m not seeing in the Critical Rationality tradition, so far, is a workable account of how scientific theories do get confirmed in practice. (Which clearly does happen and is important, contra Popper’s early views.) Maybe
@DavidDeutschOxf has a good story about this?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Popper's later views were that scientific theories did not get confirmed, either. At least, not ultimately. The closest he came to "confirmation" was a temporary cessation of criticism of a theory until the scientist(s) could think up new criticisms.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Thanks; that is what I’ve read. (Embarrassed to say I haven’t read Popper himself.) I don’t find this view helpful. It doesn’t seem to describe how science works in practice. It doesn’t give normative guidance for practice. And the logic doesn’t really work either, afaict.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Lest I get axe-grindy, Popper is the only normative guide I've heard of. You won't get a criteria of demarcation of science out of Kuhn, for instance. His "normal science" is based on social norms, not methodological norms- which is what Karl Popper is *all about*.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @averykimball @Meaningness and
Dude, Popper is *easy* to read. He aint Wittgenstein. I mean, he really got after Hegel for obscurantism in "The Open Society And Its Enemies", he tries to be clear and straightforward. "Conjectures And Refutations" is only 500 pages and really fun weird.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Yes… my problem is that based on secondary sources, I’m not expecting to find a workable story there. So it’s hard to justify reading 500 pages, if it’s likely I’ll say “yup, he had no answers to the obvious objections” in the end.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
What might the obvious objections be?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @averykimball @Meaningness and
I mean, other than "some scientists self-report that they do an impossibly illogical thing when they design studies"?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
The current replication crisis is that misunderstanding of induction (from the mainstream) coming home to roost! Popperians must be pleased, and rightly so.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.