History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedFalsification or comparison, which is more suitabl

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
coberst View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 26-Mar-2009
Status: Offline
Points: 40
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote coberst Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Falsification or comparison, which is more suitabl
    Posted: 09-Apr-2009 at 10:51

Falsification or comparison, which is more suitable?

 

Karl Popper’s theory of criticism is that a theory can be falsified if it does not conform to the facts.  I argue that this mode of criticism is satisfactory for some domains of knowledge but not for others.

 

Popper’s theory of criticism is adequate in matters of the natural sciences wherein knowledge deals only with monological and not multilogical concerns.  Physics is a normal science, as defined by Thomas Kuhn, and a normal science is one in which the paradigm defines the boundaries and logic of the particular domain of knowledge under consideration. 

 

An example might be the development of the atomic bomb.  The scientists working on the bomb were confined strictly to the logic of physics; they did not, perhaps could not, accomplish their task if they were to consider matters of morality.

 

“Since social and political theories are unavoidably selective, partial and culturally conditioned, the only way to improve them is to force them to explain themselves, to articulate and justify their assumptions and choice of concepts, to defend their interpretations of facts and show why other interpretations are mistaken.”

 

Theories of physics are determined to be true or false by physical measurements: by weighing and/or measuring.  Theories in the human sciences must be defended by narrative.  The defense of Darwin’s theory of natural selection is such an example.

 

“Facts destroy a social or political theory not so much by falsifying it as by undermining its integrity and credibility, by making it incoherent…What one needs, therefore is not a boxing match…and the victory goes to the one who deals a knock-out blow…but a sympathetic and imaginative dialogue in which each contestant tries to learn from the rest.”

 

Social and political knowledge grows as a result of both criticism and sympathetic imagination through dialogical reasoning; thereby incorporating insight from an ever more sophisticated and broadening vision.

 

Quotes from Knowledge and Belief in Politics edited by Robert Benewick, R.N. Berki, and Bhikhu Parekh

 

 

 

Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Location: Snowy-Highlands
Status: Offline
Points: 5725
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Apr-2009 at 00:56
Facts don't seem to have any relevance to the majority of human society. Stories, on the other hand, seem to be particularly powerful if told enough. For example, it is a nice story that Darwin discovered evolution and his theory explains the development of life, facts on the other hand would indicate that Lamarck's (who lived before Darwin) theory is better than Darwins, and in 20 years time we might consider both of them to be wrong.
"O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet"
~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor
Back to Top
coberst View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 26-Mar-2009
Status: Offline
Points: 40
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote coberst Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Apr-2009 at 09:45
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Facts don't seem to have any relevance to the majority of human society. Stories, on the other hand, seem to be particularly powerful if told enough. For example, it is a nice story that Darwin discovered evolution and his theory explains the development of life, facts on the other hand would indicate that Lamarck's (who lived before Darwin) theory is better than Darwins, and in 20 years time we might consider both of them to be wrong.
 
Anything is possible.  I suspect few people thought that it was possible to change Newton's theory of gravity.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.