From: "corrado Morozzo" <corradomorozzo-AT-libero.it>
To: <feyerabend-driftline.org-AT-lists.driftline.org>
Subject: RE: [PKF] NOT SO IMPORTANT:
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 11:39:53 +0100


Mike E-G wrote:

.................
.................

Okay before this goes to far, it seems to be straining credibility a bit to
say that the logical framework of "science" however this is defined is that

(A) a prediction can be wrong and that
(B) the meaning of a truth claim is communicable

Using this these criteria would lead you to define any activity of anybody
as "science" and water down the meaning of the word so much as to render it
worthless. I'm guessing but don't think this is what Feyerabend had in mind.

My comments

I am not sure what you mean by point A and B, and how it would water down
the role of science. Could you explain better?

Reading the next paragraph you seem to consider that science should be one
step higher or better than a normal person activity, well, to me this is
just what Feyerabend was fighting against, he recognised that science and
the scientific method had its purpose and merits, but he considered science
and the scientific method a simple tool to enquire about nature, but not
"the only method", and especially not the truth itself.

He went on saying that truth is more likely to be found or built by everyday
men in everyday life, in the way to interact, in their sentiments, in what
they believe and not in one and only one predefined (holy) scientific
method.

And I could only agree with him, if we compare a normal person activity,
plunged in a complex and unforeseeable environment and having to take
continuous decisions, I really wander if those decision are all based on a
"scientific or predefined method" or, on the contrary, taken by some
"natural method" (that we share with other organism) that, for all its
efforts, the scientific method is still a long way to understand (and
sometime even to be aware of).

If this, as I believe, were the case, it is the natural method that should
be one step higher than the scientific one.

Corrado M.

-----Original Message-----
From: feyerabend-driftline.org-bounces-AT-lists.driftline.org
[mailto:feyerabend-driftline.org-bounces-AT-lists.driftline.org]On Behalf
Of Michael Eathorne-Gould
Sent: 03 December 2004 21:40
To: feyerabend-driftline.org-AT-lists.driftline.org
Subject: RE: [PKF] NOT SO IMPORTANT:


Iolo Savill wrote

NOT SO IMPORTANT:
-some 'science' has in important ways reached further than astrology
-thanks matt - showing that some scientists are being dogmatic is
probably part of the reason why he defends astrology this way -however
the scientists objection is not purely dogmatic - it is a question of
the basis on which astrologers support their claims to knowledge MORE
IMPORTANT: -Doesn't astrology have the same or a similar logical
framework to science? Is there not the possibility of what the
astrologer predicts being wrong, and is this not decided in a similar
way (perhaps not in all cases, given ambiguous predictions and failsafe
predictions, but in some)? Even more importantly the astrologer assumes
a meaning for what he writes that is communicable to most people, even
scientists, and some scientific work is also like this. It seems that
people deliberately present theories in opposition to each other - so
that there is a choice to be made. Are people mistaken in this? To take
a popular example - the Newton-Einstein shift in mechanics. Einstein's
theory engaged with Newton's by setting a limit to the speed of light -
a term that Newton would fully of understood, and stating something of
it that is impossible given the Galilean transformations of reference
frames that Newton used. The objection is at a point of contact of
logic. The point is that Einstein used the Newtonian logic , but
supposed a different,  but possible, postulate (i.e. conceivable
postulate to Newton). This is possible because the scientific method has
the concept of the primitiveness of propostions. What do you think?


------------------------
Okay before this goes to far, it seems to be straining credibility a bit
to say that the logical framework of "science" however this is defined
is that
(A) a prediction can be wrong and that
(B) the meaning of a truth claim is communicable

Using this these criteria would lead you to define any activity of
anybody as "science" and water down the meaning of the word so much as
to render it worthless. I'm guessing but don't think this is what
Feyerabend had in mind.

Mike E-G
_______________________________________________
List address: feyerabend-AT-driftline.org
Admin interface:
http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/feyerabend-driftline.org

_______________________________________________
List address: feyerabend-AT-driftline.org
Admin interface: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/feyerabend-driftline.org