Thanks to Kenneth Allen Hopf for highlighting that consistency with a theory is not support. Consistency provides a great focus for getting a grip on the logic of testing. Mark Notturno in Science and the Open Society (2000) made some statements that are so beautifully worded they are downright aphoristic. A valid argument is not so much a proof as a choice. In invalid and so called inductive arguments the truth of the conclusion is consistent with the truth of the premises. But inconsistency , ironically enough is what really matters. In a valid deductive argument the falsity of the conclusion is inconsistent with the truth of the premises. The best a valid argument can do is show that its conclusion is true provided its premises are true - or, to put it differently, that either its conclusion is true or one or more of the premises are false. No argument can force us to accept the truth of any statement. But a valid deductive argument CAN force us to CHOOSE between the truth of its conclusion on one hand and the falsity of its premises on the other. An inductive argument cannot do this. Criticism can never force us to reject any particular belief as false or to accept any particular belief as true. But it can force us, if it is to be effective at all, to recognize that our beliefs are contradictory, and to reexamine them, and to try to decide how we should revise them in order to remove the contradiction. Bruce Caithness, in a post on the facebook-page of the fb-group of critical rationalism. This group is very interesting, especially for people interested in the philosophy of science and all other things popperian. Some members have taught me a lot. A link to the group and to the book of Mark Notturno is given in the comments. (from your admin luc c..)
Posted on: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 04:02:28 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015