Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 12:06:11 +1100 (EST)
Subject: Re: PKF: Where is the discussion?


In reply to Barbara Kellam: here's one perspective on PKF on
counterinduction.

His basic argument that good science does not proceed
inductively was one he learnt from Popper, and which was in
fact due to Duhem (I think Lakatos called it "Duhem's master-
argument" against inductivism).  It was that laws supposedly
inferred by generalization (sibg) from instances, or theories
sibg from laws, were in fact typically _inconsistent_ with their
supposed evidence.  E.g. Newton's laws were inconsistent
with Galileo's law of free fall (it had constant acceleration,
Newton had constantly increasing acceleration, for a body
falling to earth) and with Kepler's elliptical laws (plus the
assumption that there were at least three bodies: the
gravitational effect of the third would disturb the conic
sectional orbit you'd predict on the basis of just two).

That it proceeds _counterinductively_ was not a new thesis,
just a newly provocative bit of PKF rhetoric to bring home
the same point.  He was reacting to e.g. Hempel's insistence
on "the consistency condition", that new laws had to be
consistent with well-established facts and new theories had
to be consistent with well established laws; and to many
orthodox quantum theorists' insisting in effect on the same
thing in their criticisms of e.g. Bohm, Vigier and Lande.
So I suggest that PKF's argument could be read as having
a tacit clause: [If _this_ is what it is for science to proceed
inductively, then] good science proceeds _counter_-
inductively!

Best Wishes,
	John Fox

School of Philosophy
La Trobe University
Bundoora, Vic 3083
Australia


**********************************************************************
Contributions: mailto:feyerabend-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Commands: mailto:majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Requests: mailto:feyerabend-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu