So much gold! -Never miss an opportunity to learn, even from outlandish people that obviously wrong. -Pulling rank is admitting defeat and admitting inability to admit defeat. -Hard work is just unpleasant work -Corroboration is important for Applied Sciences, eg Airplane Design -Criticism is difficult. Important but often poorly articulated, and poorly received. -Optimism is not an evaluation but an imperative. -To maybe write more: You may be at war with yourself, lay down your weapons, make peace with yourself. (omg I love it) Even more than I could list!
Agassi seems to be in error on the subject of _The Sensory Order_. In Jack Birner's paper, "From Group Selection to Ecological Niches: Popper's Rethinking of Evolution in the Light of Hayek's Theory of Culture" (Parusniková Z., Cohen R.S. (eds) Rethinking Popper. Boston Studies in The Philosophy of Science, vol 272. Springer, Dordrecht, p 185-202) we find the following in the abstract: "Hayek's _The Sensory Order_ contains a physicalist identity theory of the mind. Popper criticized it, saying that it could not explain the higher functions of language. Hayek took up the challenge in a manuscript but failed to refute Popper's arguments. Drawing upon the same manuscript, Hayek developed a theory of behavioural rules and cultural evolution. Despite his criticism of the theory of mind on which this evolutionary theory was based, Popper adopted Hayek's idea of group selection." So, here we have it that Popper not only read _The Sensory Order_ but criticized it. Birner quotes from some of the relevant correspondence in the paper. In light of these interactions, we must conclude that Popper did read _The Sensory Order_.
Joseph Agassi's criticism of the demarcation principle was not explained well. It was also accepted by Popper. It distinguishes between sufficiency and necessity. Just because something can be refuted does not mean that it is science (this is Agassi's criticism). Instead the demarcation should be worded: if it cannot be (empirically) refuted, then it is not science. Demarcation is necessary but not a sufficient criterion. Empirical studies can then be separated into two distinct domains: technology and theoretical science. This is what I get from what Agassi is saying. Two criticisms: Agassi is correct that Popper did not distinguish clearly enough between science and technology, but that does not mean to say that Popper did not talk about technology much, which is what Agassi says, but his the Poverty of Historicism is about social technology and many other essays of his as well. What Popper did not discuss very much was decision making, which could be seen as within the domain of technology, and when he did so, he wasn't always clear. Corroboration, contra Agassi, is important in both, since if no theory is ever corroborated, either no tests have been done, or all get refuted on the first test. Either of which would be bad for science.
So much gold!
-Never miss an opportunity to learn, even from outlandish people that obviously wrong.
-Pulling rank is admitting defeat and admitting inability to admit defeat.
-Hard work is just unpleasant work
-Corroboration is important for Applied Sciences, eg Airplane Design
-Criticism is difficult. Important but often poorly articulated, and poorly received.
-Optimism is not an evaluation but an imperative.
-To maybe write more: You may be at war with yourself, lay down your weapons, make peace with yourself. (omg I love it)
Even more than I could list!
Joseph Agassi has long been my favorite critic and cohort of Popper.. Loved this interview!
Agassi has a bountiful & beautiful mind. Worth reading.
Thank you so much
Agassi seems to be in error on the subject of _The Sensory Order_. In Jack Birner's paper, "From Group Selection to Ecological Niches: Popper's Rethinking of Evolution in the Light of Hayek's Theory of Culture" (Parusniková Z., Cohen R.S. (eds) Rethinking Popper. Boston Studies in The Philosophy of Science, vol 272. Springer, Dordrecht, p 185-202) we find the following in the abstract:
"Hayek's _The Sensory Order_ contains a physicalist identity theory of the mind. Popper criticized it, saying that it could not explain the higher functions of language. Hayek took up the challenge in a manuscript but failed to refute Popper's arguments. Drawing upon the same manuscript, Hayek developed a theory of behavioural rules and cultural evolution. Despite his criticism of the theory of mind on which this evolutionary theory was based, Popper adopted Hayek's idea of group selection."
So, here we have it that Popper not only read _The Sensory Order_ but criticized it. Birner quotes from some of the relevant correspondence in the paper. In light of these interactions, we must conclude that Popper did read _The Sensory Order_.
"Every criticism is beneficial including criticism that rests on misunderstanding and nothing more!"
That's easy to say, not to do.
Distracting background, to put it mildly.
Joseph Agassi's criticism of the demarcation principle was not explained well. It was also accepted by Popper. It distinguishes between sufficiency and necessity. Just because something can be refuted does not mean that it is science (this is Agassi's criticism). Instead the demarcation should be worded: if it cannot be (empirically) refuted, then it is not science. Demarcation is necessary but not a sufficient criterion. Empirical studies can then be separated into two distinct domains: technology and theoretical science. This is what I get from what Agassi is saying.
Two criticisms: Agassi is correct that Popper did not distinguish clearly enough between science and technology, but that does not mean to say that Popper did not talk about technology much, which is what Agassi says, but his the Poverty of Historicism is about social technology and many other essays of his as well. What Popper did not discuss very much was decision making, which could be seen as within the domain of technology, and when he did so, he wasn't always clear. Corroboration, contra Agassi, is important in both, since if no theory is ever corroborated, either no tests have been done, or all get refuted on the first test. Either of which would be bad for science.