Deborah, there is nothing problematic about Popper’s demarcation. I consistently ask people what it’s problems are and you realise they are just straightforward misunderstandings. Your elaboration is no exception. Popper took all what you say it account. He said that the rule for ‘face saving’ adjustments should be that the auxiliary hypothesis that adjust them should be independently testable. It does not follow from Popper’s demarcation that if something is falsified then it is science. His demarcation is a necessary property not a sufficient one. It only claim that if something is not falsifiable then it is not scientific. How can you be a philosopher of science with and award and make this elementary year 1 undergraduate mistake? It is not Popper’s fault that there isn’t a demarcation of science that will make it anymore warranted than any other investigation. Why is it that only Popper had put a demarcation forward that doesn’t succumb to this obviously erroneous way of delineating science. Yet his method, though not justified is effective. What else do you want: the unicorn of warranted assertsbility…😢 this is not the dark ages, where people’s assertions have to be vetted by some self-appointed clergy. Why are scientists trying to usurp that role and why are philosophers trying to help them? All you need is a republic of science where each participant is open to criticism, and just open to criticism but actively seeking it. Continue to promote a philosophy of science that thinks that we have to find some way do justify our claims and also that justifying makes them what - less suceptical to being wrong? - then you will constantly stifle the only idea that solves any of these problems in science - the idea that theories should be constantly and ceaselessly critically investigated and no amount of evidence justified them, and you will constantly be a participant in encouraging the very thing you want to disappear: the attempt to pretend that your theories are exalted by evidence. Your view leaves a back door to that kind of misuse. Self-sabotaging. Any theory of science that says there is some way to make scientific theories compelling will always have methods that can be abused to make theories some more compelling than they are. Theories can never be justified not one bit. Pretending that they can is the whole problem.
Unless one has read (and re-read) very carefullly both of Mayo's most recent books (and I have) it is not possible to authentically appreciate her genius, breadth of knowledge, and careful clarity of thought. She is a very lucid thinker and writer. This interview on RUclips is a surprising disappointment for me but not because of anything that she is saying. The sharp disappointments I have are with the host. I do not know his credentials but from the rambling structure and content of his overly long questions, I perceive that he is in way over his head. He is visibly ill at ease. It is highly distracting for me that he repeatedly says, "like" and uses it as a verbal crutch. I actually lost count of the number of "likes" I heard. As well, he spews the odious filler "you know" over and over in his remarks -- this sort of verbiage choice makes him sound exactly like the teenaged kids seen hanging around with their well-used skateboards near shopping malls all over 'Murika.
Why has this so few views?
Deborah, there is nothing problematic about Popper’s demarcation. I consistently ask people what it’s problems are and you realise they are just straightforward misunderstandings. Your elaboration is no exception. Popper took all what you say it account. He said that the rule for ‘face saving’ adjustments should be that the auxiliary hypothesis that adjust them should be independently testable.
It does not follow from Popper’s demarcation that if something is falsified then it is science. His demarcation is a necessary property not a sufficient one. It only claim that if something is not falsifiable then it is not scientific.
How can you be a philosopher of science with and award and make this elementary year 1 undergraduate mistake?
It is not Popper’s fault that there isn’t a demarcation of science that will make it anymore warranted than any other investigation. Why is it that only Popper had put a demarcation forward that doesn’t succumb to this obviously erroneous way of delineating science. Yet his method, though not justified is effective. What else do you want: the unicorn of warranted assertsbility…😢 this is not the dark ages, where people’s assertions have to be vetted by some self-appointed clergy. Why are scientists trying to usurp that role and why are philosophers trying to help them?
All you need is a republic of science where each participant is open to criticism, and just open to criticism but actively seeking it. Continue to promote a philosophy of science that thinks that we have to find some way do justify our claims and also that justifying makes them what - less suceptical to being wrong? - then you will constantly stifle the only idea that solves any of these problems in science - the idea that theories should be constantly and ceaselessly critically investigated and no amount of evidence justified them, and you will constantly be a participant in encouraging the very thing you want to disappear: the attempt to pretend that your theories are exalted by evidence. Your view leaves a back door to that kind of misuse. Self-sabotaging.
Any theory of science that says there is some way to make scientific theories compelling will always have methods that can be abused to make theories some more compelling than they are.
Theories can never be justified not one bit. Pretending that they can is the whole problem.
Unless one has read (and re-read) very carefullly both of Mayo's most recent books (and I have) it is not possible to authentically appreciate her genius, breadth of knowledge, and careful clarity of thought. She is a very lucid thinker and writer. This interview on RUclips is a surprising disappointment for me but not because of anything that she is saying. The sharp disappointments I have are with the host. I do not know his credentials but from the rambling structure and content of his overly long questions, I perceive that he is in way over his head. He is visibly ill at ease. It is highly distracting for me that he repeatedly says, "like" and uses it as a verbal crutch. I actually lost count of the number of "likes" I heard. As well, he spews the odious filler "you know" over and over in his remarks -- this sort of verbiage choice makes him sound exactly like the teenaged kids seen hanging around with their well-used skateboards near shopping malls all over 'Murika.