Benno ter Kuile wrote:
>> A reply to Frank Bruggeman
>> Personally, I think a lot depends on your definition of the word
> "Theory".
I think Frank was talking specifically about Karl Popper's definition of
the word "Theory". Here is a quote from a website ("The Karl Popper
Web", http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~tkpw/) that purports to be authoritative
about Popper's work:
The Logic of Scientific Discovery
---------------------------------
Logik Der Forschung, Vienna: Springer, 1934
"[...] In one majestic and systematic attack, psychologism, naturalism,
inductionism, and logical positivism are swept away and replaced by a
set of methodological rules called Falsificationism. Falsificationism
is the idea that science advances by unjustified, exaggerated guesses
followed by unstinting criticism. Only hypotheses capable of clashing
with observation reports are allowed to count as scientific. "Gold is
soluble in hydrochloric acid" is scientific (though false); "Some
homeopathic medicine does work" is, taken on its own, unscientific
(though possibly true). The first is scientific because we can
eliminate it if it is false; the second is unscientific because even if
it were false we could not get rid of it by confronting it with an
observation report that contradicted it. Unfalsifiable theories are
like the computer programs with no uninstall option that just clog up
the computers' precious storage space. Falsifiable theories, on the
other hand, enhance our control over error while expanding the richness
of what we can say about the world. [...]"
> It seems to me that the central statement of the metabolic
> control analysis theory, that control is shared between steps, is
> moderately falsifiable.
I think the question is, is MCA falsifiable or not, in Popper's sense.
Popper seems to be sticking with Aristotelian binary logic (true/false,
nothing in between), rather than what mathematicians call 'continuous
logic' (somewhat true and somewhat false).
I must say that for me, Falsificionism is just another philosophical
"-ism", firmly rooted in its ideological underpinnings. Just look who
was the main sponsor of Popper's: that strange man Hayek.
Some people would have you believe that Popper is the next best thing
after sliced bread (I meant to say, after Francis Bacon), but I suggest
let's be somewhat critical about Popper's notion that science advances
by 'unjustified, exaggerated guesses'. I believe that claim is somewhat
unjustified and exaggerated itself.
-- Petr
_____________________________________________________________________
P e t r K u z m i c, Ph.D. mailto:pkuzmic at biokin.com
BioKin Ltd. * Software and Consulting http://www.biokin.com
P.O. Box 8336 Ph. 608.256.4790
Madison, WI 53708 Fax 608.256.1269
