Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id BAA02990 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 13 May 2000 01:54:21 +0100 Message-Id: <200005130052.UAA09968@mail6.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 19:56:14 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Useless memes References: <391BEF63.13CB113F@mediaone.net> In-reply-to: <Pine.SGI.4.10.10005121933180.9489380-100000@helios.physics.utoronto.ca> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Date sent: Fri, 12 May 2000 19:46:46 -0400
From: Robert Logan <logan@physics.utoronto.ca>
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Useless memes
Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>
>
> On Fri, 12 May 2000, Chuck Palson wrote:
> >
> > I agree with this. I think sometimes its easier to take the literal
> > meaning of something and assume that it is therefore stupid. This is a
> > general mistake - as in when Dawkins and others "prove" that religion
> > is false - without taking into account the entire effect of that meme.
>
> The claim that anyone can prove religion is false is itself false. The
> problem with Dawkins proof is that his fallacy is wrong. :-)
>
> Religions are not true or false in the sense of logic - they are belief
> systems. They are based on axioms which can not be true or false. An
> assumption is an assumption is an assumption which is neither true or
> false. If one postulates the existence of a God on the basis of faith then
> that God exists in that persons belief system and effects their behaviour.
>
> I have already shared with this list my non-probativity theorem in which I
> claim science can not prove anything. It goes as follows:
>
> The Science Non-Probativity Theorem
>
> Axiom: A proposition must be falsifiable to be a scientific proposition or
> part of a scientific theory.
>
> Axiom: A proposition can not be proven true and be falsifiable at the same
> time. [Once proven true, a proposition can not be falsified and, hence, is
> not falsifiable.]
>
> Theorem: A proposition can not be proven to be true by use of science or
> the scientific method.
>
> Proof: If a proposition were to be proven to be true by the methods of
> science it would no longer be falsifiable. If it is no longer falsifiable
> because it has been proven true it can not be considered as a scientific
> proposition and hence could not have been proven true by science. Q.E.D.
>
> In the spirit of the Science Non-Probativity Theorem, we can not be
> certain that this line of reasoning is absolutely valid or true. After all
> we have just used the theorem, a syntactical element of the language of
> mathematics to establish a proposition about the language of science. Our
> theorem is not scientifically valid but as a result of mathematical
> reasoning we have created a useful probe; one that can lead to some
> interesting reflections and insights into the nature and limitation of
> science. If it helps scientists and the public, who tend to accept the
> authority of science more or less uncritically, to adopt a more humble and
> modest understanding of science, it will have served its purpose.
>
> All that science can do is to follow its tried and true method of
> observing, experimenting, generalizing, hypothesizing and then testing its
> hypotheses. The most that a scientist can do is to claim that for every
> experiment or test performed so far, the hypothesis that has been
> formulated explains all the observations made to date. Scientific truth is
> always equivocal and dependent on the outcome of future observations,
> discoveries and experiments. It is never absolute.
>
> A scientist who claims to have proven anything is being dogmatic. Every
> human being, even a scientist, has a right to their beliefs and dogmas.
> But it does not behoove a person who claims to be a rational scientist and
> who claims that science is objective and universal to be so absolute in
> their beliefs and in the value of their belief system, science.
>
> If you would like the entire paper email me and I will send it to you.
>
You might want to compare your Science Non-Probativity Theorem
to Popperian Falsifiability, Bob. They seem awfully close to me.
>
> Bob Logan
> ****************************************************************************
> * Robert K. Logan - Assoc. Prof. of Physics - University of Toronto *
> * 60 St. George Street - Toronto, Ontario, M5S 1A7 - Canada *
> * e-mail: logan@physics.utoronto.ca *
> * phone: (416)978-8632 or 652-2570 or 927-9200 fax: (416)927-7077 *
> * Author of: The Fifth Language: Learning a Living in the Computer Age *
> ****************************************************************************
>
>
> ===============================================================
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
>
>
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 13 2000 - 01:54:41 BST