We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Patrick Crozier is happy to see the old lags of British terrestrial television being given a run for their money
UK Channel 5 has been dismissed by the elite as being a non-stop orgy of sex and violence. Such statements in themselves lay bare the warped priorities of our ‘leaders’ but there is one other problem: it isn’t true. Channel 5 is simply the most dynamic and innovative British terrestrial channel around.
It has the best reality TV programme: The Mole
It has the best two animations: The Powerpuff Girls and Tintin
And it has some of the best history documentaries around. My favourite has to be Hitler’s Henchmen. Not least because an inspired piece of scheduling led to biographies of Hermann Goering and Heinrich Himmler being interspersed with shows covering the life and works of John Prescott and Pete Waterman.
In fact, Channel 5’s documentaries seem to be giving BBC2 and Channel 4 something of a headache. For many years these stuck up elito-vision channels have been pumping out nothing but revisionist pap. You know, ‘Churchill was a drunken child molestor’, that sort of thing. But then Channel 5 started broadcasting things like “British Heroes of World War 2” (the title says it all). And then “Secrets of World War 2”. In the hands of the elite this would have been all about how Churchill contributed to the slaughter of Russians on the Eastern Front but from Channel 5 it a set of stories about the daring exploits of our ancestors.
I do not know if Channel 5’s documentaries are particularly popular. But the reaction (especially from Channel 4) has been revealing. To “Secrets of WW2” Channel 4 countered with “Battle Stations”. To “Heroes” they countered with “Commando”. And to a fine 3-parter on the Falklands they dusted off a 10-year old documentary of their own and put it out as a spoiler.
But the really interesting thing about this is the way the content has changed. Quite simply, Channel 4 has sobered up, smelt the coffee and dumped the revisionism. Commando was an hour long show but contained little more than half an hour’s actual information. Could it be that the missing half an hour was the revisionism they had to axe to get the ratings?
Patrick Crozier
The notorious Lagwolf comments on another tale of ‘older woman’ syndrome and replies to his detractors
Giles Brandreth confesses a “Mrs Robinson” liaison as well in today’s Sunday Telegraph. He, like the boys in the recent UK case, bragged and got his seductress in trouble. Although he does wobble a bit at the end of the editorial, it is mostly positive towards this sort of liaison. Truth be told both cases say more about men and boys who are wont to brag, than they do about the evils of older women/younger men liaisons.
My first set of scribblings on the subject of “Mrs Robinson” caused one Samizdata reader to write in. She begins:
“Lagwolf’s writing really fails to deal with the problems in either case.”
There is little doubt that the humorous twist to my rant was entirely lost on this reader. She then goes on to state:
“Lagwolf addresses none of the somewhat serious issues that arise from what is a relatively silly case.”
Serious issues, excuse me please, but the case is about a couple of women ‘streakers’ who got caught and defended themselves. One can only hope the transcript to the trial gets released.
While it is rather disturbing that men risk prosecution for participation is this collegiate right-of-passage, this is still daft. What foolish policeman decided to prosecute these two young women? Surely he should have known that he would have come up a cropper, made an arse of himself, the law of the state and the State of Maine? It is possible Maine will follow a town called Locust, PA in the US which has outlawed anything sexual in a public place. (Thanks to Instapundit for this link.)
She then takes me to task for my “its good for the boys” comment about the recent case in the UK (see above). She gives me a right drubbing for making light of the issue. Entirely ignoring my points in praise of older women liaisons, the second paragraph reads like it was written by a pressure group that has decided there is no difference between boys and girls.
The email continues:
“Should we likewise be encouraging young boys to have sex with men? Or young women to be having sex with older men? Or younger women with older women? If so, why? If not, why not?”
I make it clear in my post that I believe it is a good thing for young men to loose their virginity to slightly older women, but not for girls. The Daily Telegraph agrees with me on the grounds that boys can’t get pregnant, need to be “interested” to perform and generally stronger than women. In other words, it is impossible for a older woman to rape a teenage boy. It is possible, despite what some pressure groups say to address a particular issue, by itself.
It is worth keeping in mind that it is only in the “enlightened” West that anyone even suggests that a 14 year old is a “child.” It was appalling to see The Independent calling for the Canadian teacher to be charged with paedophile.
I never set to write an expose on all types of underage sex. It is a shame that some readers can’t take humour for it’s worth. I wasn’t dealing with problems, I was making fun of uptight puritanical types who see everything in black and white. The letter in response makes the post even more apt.
Lagwolf
The notorious Lagwolf writes in with his views of streaking and joys of older women
For some odd reason both Maine and the UK, two places I hold dear, are both in a tizzy over silly sex stories. I have been resisting to write about these two stories, but they do seem to be getting many a knicker in a twist. Both involve 20-something women doing things, they ought not to, but in perspective not too egregious.
In Maine two women have successfully defended themselves (Judge rules women can jog naked in Maine) against the charge of public indecency. In seems that these two “streakers” were not breaking the law because no genitals were shown. Having done their research, the arresting officer was asked if he say any genitals. He said “no.” Case dismissed, and the state of Maine has wasted oddles of money prosecuting two women for doing something college students have been doing since Rome. This does mean the law is sexist of course, because men’s genitals are exposed they may not streak. You would almost think the law in Maine is encouraging women to streak.
There are those who want to ban “streaking”. As Maine Goes has a whole thread dedicated to who is more childish, those defending these women’s right to run around nude or those against it.
The case is the UK is a bit more serious, but just as daft. A woman has been found not guilty of “sexually abusing” two boys over the age of 14. Of course, the Independent is screaming that she raped these boys. The Telegraph and its columnist Boris Johnson have quite rightly poo-pooed this notion. That is not to say that pressure groups have not fired off a few terse letters to the paper for their “callous” disregard for the case.
We get to read how one man became a drug addict, socially maladjusted and a loner after he was “raped” at 15 by a woman twice his age! Oh give me a break, this guy was all of those things before he got his cheery popped.
Another letter fails to realise, as the Telegraph clearly stated, that there are big differences between girls and boys. Boys cannot get pregnant, have to be “interested” to perform and were no doubt quite willing.
The woman involved, the ‘Mrs Robinson’, was a 25 year substitute teacher. It could be argued she took ‘lessons’ a tad too far, but rape? The only reason the woman got busted was the two boys involved bragged. No doubt one of their mates who was not getting any, ‘told’ in fit of pique. For what its worth the woman involved has been sent back to Canada and won’t work as a teacher again.
There are, of course, advantages to boys having flings with older women. The women are more likely to insist on a condom, choose somewhere discreet and less likely to have guilt pains afterwards. Far from discouraging this sort of behaviour amoung young men, we should encourage it. The older woman might knock some sense into these testosterone fueled young boys. Worked for me.
Lagwolf
Ace bloggista Alex Knapp of Heretical Ideas points out that somewhere between the original Star Trek of Jim Kirk (23rd century) and the Star Trek of Jean-Luc Picard (24th century), something went horribly wrong… but it didn’t start out that way.
Now, it’s hard to defend the namby-pamby neo-liberal Federation of Star Trek:TNG, (though there’s a good case to be made from DS9 that the Feds aren’t as bad as TNG makes them appear to be), but I’m not concerned with them.
Let’s talk about real Star Trek. I’m talking about the NCC-1701, which cruised around the cosmos not only exploring new worlds, but finding new tyrannies – and crushing them. Is your world controlled by an over-intelligent super-computer? No problem–Kirk and co. will destroy it. Been trapped in a never-ending cycle of war because you fight by computer instead of the real way? Kirk and co. takes care of it. Are Klingon’s arming your rival clan’s? Not to worry–Kirk will give you guns, too, so you can protect your families. Benign interventionism, favoring democracy.
But hey, the original Trek wasn’t just about freeing enslaved peoples. It was about mutual tolerance–so you can make a few bucks. Case in point: “Devil in the Dark.” A strange creature is killing miners? Klingons would’ve just killed. Not the Federation. Kirk and Spock learn to talk to the creature, which ends up contracting with the miners–enabling them to make a greater profit. And the 23rd century Federation wasn’t cashless, either. It’s clear that Kirk and co. were paid for their work, and they spent their money in very non-PC ways. (My, I do love the green-skinned dancers…)
But in addition to bringing democracy to Third Galaxy worlds and making the universe safe for capitalism, the 23rd century Federation had a tough-minded foreign policy. When the Romulans developed a new cloaking device, did the Feds beg for a non-proliferation treaty? Did they impose economic sanctions? Hell no! They had the Enterprise go in and just steal the damn thing with a beautiful deception.
Somewhere between the 23rd and 24th centuries, maybe the Federation lost its way. But don’t forget that at the beginning, the Federation was composed of tough-minded freedom fighters who enjoyed the finer things in life (like alien babes) and appreciated money. But they weren’t just decadent–they were devoted to liberty. Don’t forget that Kirk gave up his one great love in order to prevent the Nazis from winning World War II. And, as the movies showed, they recognized the great truth of individualism–“The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.” Because only by focusing on the individual do you prevent him from being trampled by the demands of the mob.
Alex Knapp
Lagwolf writes in to sound off about Star Trek as well
Star Trek is an odd combination of secular multi-culturalism and happy-clappy-ism. The overwhelming belief is that the Federation can solve all the universe’s problems. Its “let’s all be friends” mentality even when sometimes confronted with naked aggression is political correctness at its worst. Of course they have some temperance elements as well as there is no booze, drugs or tobacco around. Trek represents everything bad about the 60s and “boomer” generation without the fun bits.
Babylon 5 however makes a point of establishing that humans and earth are not the centre of the universe. In fact, truth be told, humans are the equivalent of a pimple on a knat’s bum. We are so insignificant that there are species in the universe who can even be bothered to acknowledge our existence. Bab 5 was more a “space-opera,” having plots that went over several episodes and series. There is none of the “we can right it all in a hour” ethos as there is in Star Trek. So threatened were the producers of Star Trek that they pinched several of Bab 5’s writers to work on DS9. Of course, Bab 5 makes use of Cthulhu themes in its plot lines.
The vitriol that one gets from trekkies upon criticising the show is a sign of religious-like fervor that surrounds Star Trek and its followers. No doubt a bunch of trekkies will try and launch an attack on Samizdata for blaspheming their blessed show.
Lagwolf
[Editor: with one exception the e-mails have been fairly temperate so far]
Three of Samizdata’s intermittent guest contributors are revealed (but not reviled)
 The sinister Andrew Dodge of Dodgeblog infamy.
The mysterious Lagwolf
The ubiquitous Mommabear
The ubiquitous Mommabear writes in with a rant about Amnesty International’s selective conscience
Where is Amnesty International when someone really needs help? If an individual is truly in jeopardy but not held by the “big, bad, Satan America”, forget about it.
Those NGOs who bleat and wail about The United States of America, with far too much support from biased and political media groups, should be held accountable for any detrimental or deadly results in this particular case. For openers, they should be stripped of their tax-free status; when they start lobbying from a political position, they violate the laws by which they are permitted to function. They need to be exposed, over and over, for what they really are: poseurs with political bias.
Here is a legal case that cries out for worldwide condemnation. If Amnesty International and other like groups fail to perform, castigate, or at least condemn this judicial situation, then they expose the truth about themselves, which belies their current posturing completely. They should be ashamed.
MommaBear
Phil Thomas writes in with some remarks about the mess in Argentina
The antiglobalisation movement has made much of the current economic state of Argentina, claiming that the crisis is just the latest example of the economic depression and general ruin that following recommendations of the IMF and similar institutions to create and sustain robust, functional markets brings upon a nation. These activists are mistaken. It is certainly true that Argentine officials attempted to follow IMF advice in reforming many areas of the economy.
However, many of these reforms were stopped mid-stream and later abandoned, as Steve Hanke, a professor of economics at Johns Hopkins, details in a Cato Institute report. Once any attempt to provide a sound foundation for Argentina’s economy was abandoned, it was only a matter of time until the system was in serious trouble. Abandoning the path of sound markets, along with a dramatic increase in taxation over the past decade, sealed Argentina’s fate. In the end, blame for the current Argentine affair rests not with the international institutions or international capitalism in general, but with the Argentine politicians who saw fit to kill efforts to build a sound economy and in so doing mismanage their country into the ground.
Phil Thomas
Crazed Samizdata reader Peter Barker has written in with a proposal that we felt needed to be shared:
I was involved in an interesting discussion with a self claimed libertarian the other day. We were doing the rounds on the usual ideas about gun control and the right to arm bears. This guy was up for the idea of unrestricted possession or firearms but was advancing the idea that a legal caliber limit (?) might be placed on personal weapons.
This got me thinking in my radical way. When the “founding fathers” drew up the American constitution (and all its subsequent amendments) and gave American citizens the right to bear arms they did so to enable the citizens to defend themselves not only from hostile people but also (and mainly) from hostile governments (like their own…). The general idea being, I suppose, that if the “government” attempted to impose unconstitutional means upon the populace then they could resist effectively – as they did against the British.
So move this ideal forward a few centuries. Now if the government think you shouldn’t be doing something – they send round a semi-armoured swat squad, a few APCs and have a helicopter with missiles in reserve. If the neighbourhood ain’t so quiet they send in the national guard with the whole cacophony of modern warfare. Now of course if the local citizens objected to this and “tool up” to resist effectively, well, the administration will just calls them “unlawful combatants” and your civil rights are history. Remember those mad mullahs – the Branch Davidians of Waco (We Ain’t Commin’ Out) as an excellent example.
So how to square the circle? American citizens are supposed to be able to effectively defend themselves from government aggression. This can only mean one thing. The right to bear arms must translate (in new speak) into the right to own an effectively deterrent against anyone attempting to arbitrarily impose their will.
Which leads me to conclude one thing. I want a tank and a nuclear bomb [Ed: only one?]. As much as I’d like a Sukhoi 29 (or the new 31) the running costs are too high – there are some fiscal limits to my imagination. So, libertarians, who’ll support me?
Oh! that many…. Hmmmm.
Peter did not say if he takes cash, cheques, gold or credit cards for this worthy cause.
Rafe Champion puts the intellectual boot in one again in the latest round of the Interblog Popper WarsTM
The debate between Karl Popper and his opponents has not advanced very far in seven decades and it is tempting to conclude that it is a waste of time to argue with philosophers about these things. In my view the fault lies entirely with Popper’s opponents who clearly demonstrate that “true belief” theories of knowlege produce “true believers” who persist in their beliefs regardless of effective counter-arguments. Because most of the evils in the world can be attributed to the activities of fanatics (people who are not prepared to reconsider any of their “true beliefs”) I am prepared to persist for a few more rounds of this debate in the hope of explaining how some ideas from Popper and his colleague Bill Bartley can help us to move on. In the meantime, I think that those “rationalists” like Will who persist in defending “true belief” theories of knowledge are in fact “selling the other guy’s product” (that is, irrationalism).
Recall my previous contribution where I explained that critical rationalism is concerned with forming and testing “critical preferences” for scientific theories or social policies (or anything else) so that our preferences can change in an orderly fashion in the light of new evidence or new arguments. For this reason I do not agree with Will’s insistence:
that Popperianism is at bottom a skeptical philosophy of darkness, which, despite the enthusiastic rationalist rhetoric of Popperian advocates, shares more with Rorty-like post-modern pragmatism than pro-reason philosophies of light.
He wrote (in criticism of the Popper’s view that we cannot achieve certainty):
For my part, I have not been made to see what is wrong with being certain in seeing mugs on desks, nor in the problem of a proposition becoming more likely true in light of new evidence
By all means be certain (in your own mind) about mugs on desks and anything else, but bear in mind that our senses are fallible as proved by optical illusions, hallucinations and bad calls by referees and commentators in fast-moving sports. Subjective certainty proves nothing, certainly it does not prove the truth of any general scientific or moral principle. So much for that oft repeated criticism of Popper.
As for a proposition becoming “more likely true” or more probable in light of new evidence, the problem for Will and his mates is to produce the formula to indicate the supposed increase in likelihood or probability. Popperians have no argument with the proposition that there are true propositions, the problem is to know whether any particular (contested) proposition is true or false.
Will wrote:
Popper is wrong that positive instances don’t raise the probability of a hypothesis. According to Popper and Champion, the probability of Newton’s theory being true, even after all its success, was the same as the probability of cats giving birth to elephants. And that’s absurd
There are two ways of talking about probability. One is when we say that Team A will probably beat Team B in a forthcoming football game. We usually mean that we have formed a critical preference for Team A, given what we know about the game and the two teams. We may sensibly add provisos regarding dud decisions by the referee, injuries to key players etc etc. and the possibility of an upset. That is Popperian and it has nothing to do with a formula that provides a numerical value (p) attached to the proposition “Team A will win”.
Scientists use that kind of “probability” talk when they compare the relative merits of competing scientific theories. We know that Newton’s theory is not true, despite its immense improvement on earlier theories, so it is doubly absurd to think in terms of the (numerical) probability of its truth. What century is Will living in?
The other type of probability is an academic industry that has been around for some hundreds of years, devoted to producing a formula that assigns a numerical value (p) to propositions (h), in the light of various bits of evidence (e). Because no usable formula has yet been obtained for that purpose, one can only conclude that this line of thought has failed, by its own standards. I know that highly learned “Bayesians” can produce formulas but equally learned critics point out that they do not work. Sorry fellas. Thanks for refraining from talk about prior probabilities. That will only land you in a regress that takes you further away from useful talk about the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories (and football teams). That is the direction of induction and attempts to justify “true beliefs”. It does not help working scientists or anyone else. It is worth noting that Popper is the only philosopher of science who has been taken seriously by any considerable number of scientists who are sensitive to the philosophical dimensions of their work (instances are Einstein, Medaware, Eccles and Monod).
Rafe Champion (Australia)
Samizdata.net wheels out another of our ‘mercenary independent scholars’ in the Interblog Popper Wars. Alan Forrester!
Karl Popper‘s epistemology is about how to solve problems and find better theories, and as such observations do not have the grossly overrated importance given to them by inductivism. The whole notion of probability in this context is irrelevant, since a theory is either true or false and no number of confirming instances allow us to distinguish between them. On Thursday, Will Wilkinson wrote:
It is daunting indeed to debate a man named “Rafe Champion”, a name that evokes race car-driving secret agents, or dangerous, seething, family-wrecking hunks from a “daytime drama”.
Damn straight he is. He does all that, eats broken glass for breakfast and, most excitingly of all – he’s a critical rationalist!
First, I am keen to know what knowledge is, if not a kind of belief. If I know that water is H2O (a scientific proposition), don’t I also believe it?
Not in the sense you mean, i.e.- the sense that it is definitely or probably correct. We tentatively accept that a theory is better than its rival on the basis of things such as whether they provide good explanations and whether the other theories have been refuted by observations.
Next, I find that I’m able to decisively justify all sorts of beliefs on the basis of experience. For instance, that there is a mug on my desk. I see the mug on my desk, and I thereby know that it is there. Science is rather more complex than looking at mugs on desks, but one surely can derive certain beliefs from the evidence of the senses. It’s not clear to me what bind Popper is getting us out of.
So it’s totally impossible that you are hallucinating the mug? Also, why are you so obsessed about whether there is a mug on your desk or not? It’s not a very interesting question. I would sooner debate about something substantial like a meaty scientific or philosophical problem, which brings us back to the main point. Leaving quibbles like that aside, there are actually two quite different issues here. One is whether one can derive theories from observations, the other is if not what role do observations play?
It is impossible to derive theories for observations. To take but one counterexample, up until the late 19th century every observation was compatible with Newton’s theory of gravity. All these observations are also compatible with Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. Two quite different theories were compatible with the same set of observations, therefore one cannot derive theories from observations. Next we have to ask why you made those particular observations, rather than observations of, say, the exact weight of all the dust under your bed. Before the theories come along that differ in their predictions about the motion of the planets or whatever, there is no particular reason to watch their motion so theories can hardly be derived from observations. The problem is much worse than this though. Even if one could confirm, say, an equation of motion on the basis of observations, one could not derive the explanation provided by the theory from observations. For example, one could explain the motion of the planets by saying that they are pushed round the Sun by invisible pixies that just happen to obey Einstein’s equations. This explanation is rubbish on a truly epic scale compared to the explanation in terms of curved spacetime, but as the observations do not allow us to distinguish between them, the pixie theory of planetary motion must be criticised on other grounds. The role of observations is to distinguish between rival theories. Each prediction of a theory is either true or false, and each theory is either true or false, no number of confirming instances can change that, and hence they cannot prove it to be true, but if we see a refuting instance, then the theory is false.
Last, I said nothing about limiting science to collecting confirming instances. All I was saying is that Popper is wrong that positive instances don’t raise the probability of a hypothesis. According to Popper and Champion, the probability of Newton’s theory being true, even after all its success, was the same as the probability of cats giving birth to elephants.
Newton’s theory was false, so as it turns out the probability was indeed the same :-). However, all this talk of probability ignores the real issue of why, before it was refuted, it was reasonable to hold Newton’s theory, but not the theory that cats give birth to elephants, or why it is reasonable to prefer General Relativity or whatever to such a theory now. It is a good idea to prefer General Relativity to its rival because its rivals are poorer at solving problems.
It is reasonable to prefer the theory that elephants give birth to elephants rather than cats because the former solves problems and the latter does not, indeed it raises new ones. To be a bit more explicit, the theory of evolution, which is better than its rivals (although I don’t think there are any really serious rivals at the moment), gives us reason to think that elephants give birth to more elephants as a way of spreading elephant genes. The theory that cats give birth to elephants not only fails to solve any problems, it ruins theories that do solve problems. It makes absolutely no sense from an evolutionary perspective why would cat genes want to propagate elephants genes? Where did the cat get the elephant genes in the first place? Furthermore, no matter how you try to solve these problems, you just raise more and worse problems, so we can reject the theory that cats give birth to elephants out of hand. To summarize, good theories solve problems better than their rivals, but raise problems themselves, which will be solved by their successors and so we don’t consider that observations and so on confirm a theory.
Alan Forrester
In response to Will Willkinson on the The Fly Bottle taking our esteemed generalissimo Perry de Havilland to task for supporting the conjectural objective epistemology of Karl Popper, the Samizdata Team decided that we should wheel up the big guns for our response. Rafe Champion a noted Australian independent scholar of Popper replies to Will.
Will Wilkinson has invoked a number of weary and worn out arguments against Popper’s theory of inquiry and his theory of knowledge. First of all it is helpful to understand that Popper is concerned with understanding the way the world works, with learning by imaginative problem solving and making the best use of our critical faculties. It is also helpful to understand how Popper has emancipated us from some dead ends in philosophy, and not just the philosophy of science. Many of these dead ends arise from the theory that scientific knowledge is a form of belief, to wit, justified true belief. The source of justification in the empiricist tradition is supposed to be the evidence of our senses. In the Continental rationalist tradition the source of justification is the intuition of clear and distinct ideas. In each case the same fatal flaw arises: there is no way to decisively (certainly) justify the beliefs that are supposed to be true.
Popper has provided an alternative to the failed theories of justified true belief. The alternative is a theory of conjectural objective knowledge. This does not mean giving up on truth, or the search for it. Truth is a regulative standard for statements. A true statement corresponds to the facts. In our search for the truth we form critical preferences for the theory (or the social policy) which best solves its problems and stands up to all kinds of tests (the test of internal consistency, consistency with other well tested theories, and experimental or observational tests). Our preferences can change in a rational and controlled manner in the light of new evidence or new arguments. Our knowledge grows through our creative response to problems, including the problems that are created by effective criticism.
The Popperian scientists is like a free market entrepreneur, seeking opportunities (unsolved problems) in the marketplace. The scientist forms a conjectural solution to the problem (invests or offers a product in the marketplace) and it is then subjected to critical appraisal, including experimental tests (the product is tested by the market). All this goes on in the flux of time and is subject to radical uncertainty due to the inherently open-ended nature of theoretical knowledge (and the dynamic marketplace).
All of this is simple common sense until David Stove and the proponents of justified true beliefs confuse the picture.
Will wrote:
“Popper argues that one can only disconfirm a theory–prove that it is false”.
In logic, that is the simple truth. A general or universal theory, stated in the form “All swans are white” is falsified by a single (true) report of a black swan.
“But then what do you say of a theory that has been subjected to huge numbers of potentially falsifying tests, but has passed with flying colors? Isn’t not being falsified by many tests a lot like being confirmed?”
That was the case with Newton’s theory which passed many tests and explained so many things that many people thought that the final truth had been found. But it was not so, even before Einstein offered a viable alternative there were known to be problems with Newton’s theory. If you want to limit confirmation to repeatable observations, like sunrises and falling apples, then that is scientifically trivial and uninteresting because science is concerned with general explanatory theories, (which apply to both apples and sunrises).
“Pace Popper, induction works just fine, and it works pretty much the way people intuitively think it does (i.e., The more horses you encounter, the surer your knowledge about horses in general.)”
Not really. To learn about horses you need to approach them in a receptive, inquisitive or problem-solving way. If you merely encounter them “in passing” you may learn nothing more than to get out of their way. Learning is an active process of sifting and evaluating ideas and evidence, that is why so many people can go through school and higher education and learn next to nothing (exept about things that they really find interesting, which may be horses and not their academic studies). When you understand where Popper is coming from, David Stove is just a bore, despite his wit and his verbal pyrotechnics. Stove and his fellow inductivists apparently think there is some way to attach a numerical probability to general theories, but it has not yet been done despite being an academic industry for about a hundred years. This renders their position absurd by their own standards.
Rafe Champion
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
