Falsification is proving something to be false, not true. Nothing can ever be proven true, because there's no guarantee that something will stay true forever. Today's theory may be proven wrong tomorrow. If an attempt at falsification has failed, then it just means that the theory is tentatively held until a better theory comes along. It doesn't prove the theory to be true.Originally Posted by Myst
And hence why Augusta's claim of making Socionics "irrefutable" is a red flag.
This is true, in that Augusta's claim in pseuodoscientific. It is a red flag because it leads to dogmatism that may restrict the use of imagination and alternative theories of natural phenomenon, especially ones that fit more closely with the facts. I am similar in Popper's belief that unscientific claims, when dogmatic, become a problem when people in positions of power assert these questionable "truths" on the populace. Popper's standards for truth is related to who is claiming the truth and the kind of power the person has over others. This is because of his personal political positions and opinions. Science is used as a way to repel dogmatism, and hence, authoritarianism. This was relevant to the era he lived through. His view on science is very political.
Not all truths are scientific, many are not. Many of the "truths" we take for granted everyday aren't scientifically true, nor do we wait for a scientific consensus before making the countless decisions we have to make each day and throughout our life. Scientific truths are always historical and cumulative. They don't exist in the present, but in hindsight. Human creativity, imagination, ingenuity is at the forefront of scientific discovery. They come before knowledge is ever created.
Well this is actually more Postmodernism or perhaps Kuhnian "Paradigm Shift" view of science, but it's not Popperian. He was against Postmodernism, and the Kuhnian view is not compatible with the Popperian view that science builds up on previous theories and progresses and expands over time. While Kuhn says that science is basically just a struggle of power between the establishment scientists who want to hold onto their power (which he called "normal science"), and the more rebellious, "revolutionary" scientists that want to challenge their status quo and shake things up and to eventually take them over as the new establishment (which he called "revolutionary science"). And then the revolutionaries turn into the new establishment that want to hold onto power, and the cycle is repeated.
While the Kuhnian view may seem plausible at first, it's not how science actually works, because there's clearly a logical progression in each of the scientific theories that preceded it. It's not as if the previous theories have been completely refuted, but rather they still contained grains of truth that get carried on to the new theory. Or it's not as if the scientists are so biased that they won't accept any alternative views from outside of their narrow group. When quantum physics was first devised, many scientists were quick to adopt to this new field of physics, even though it radically differed from their previous field of physics.
Well... I don't see socionics as an especially scientifically validated theory to begin with. But empiricism automatically discounts that which you cannot observe via the senses, and this is a limitation. That doesn't mean empiricism isn't useful. But to say it's "purely an opinion" that this has its limitations is simply not correct, it has a limitation. And the scientific method... well, it's progressive and founded on skepticism, it's incomplete by definition. It's limited by definition. It's also incapable of assessing ethical claims or claims about the fundamental nature of will, cognition, or deeply metaphysical or philosophical claims (like ideas about how the universe began). And it also requires that things be reproducible which... some things simply are not reproducible. So... it's really not an opinion - science and empiricism have limitations.
This is actually built into the scientific method though - you never arrive at a position of absolute certainty in science. I'm not really sure why you are associating science with "positivism". Empiricism in science is just considered a useful starting point for progressing knowledge. The empirical observation is not considered positive in a universal sense. The observation is treated like a positive fact within the experiment but that's just so the experiment can be conducted, there's always skepticism of the results. Everything - even your very senses - we must remain skeptical about. Even your sense awareness is subject to skepticism: what if the mechanism of perception changed or was limited? So...
I suppose I just don't see your argument as a criticism of science, more of a criticism of those pseudo-intellectuals that presume science is something that it isn't.
Last edited by cR4z3dr4T; 03-27-2019 at 06:15 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote