mgpoolman at brookes.ac.uk wrote:
[...]
> As I understand it Popper's ideas were related to theories based on real-world
> observation.
Yes, but the relationship is not simple. Popper's followers worship him
for dismantling philosophical "inductivism", which says (very roughly)
that scientists do form theories by first observing empirical data.
Take a look at http://www.friesian.com/popper.htm:
<quote>
"Instead of scientific knowledge being discovered and verified by way of
inductive generalizations, leaping from data into blank minds, in terms
that go back to Aristotle, Popper realized that science advances instead
by deductive falsification through a process of "conjectures and
refutations." It is imagination and creativity, not induction, that
generates real scientific theories, which is how Einstein could study
the universe with no more than a piece of chalk. Experiment and
observation test theories, not produce them."
</quote>
It does seem as if certain philosophers are arguing about a
chicken-and-egg problem. What was first: experimental data and
hypotheses? Why is it necessary to assign primacy to one *or* the
other? Maybe because there are tenures to be obtained, including
Popper's. I suppose one must dismantle a few philosophical "-isms" to
be professionally certified. So, according to the Philosophy Professor
who edits friesian.com, papa Popper showed that 'experiment and
observations do not produce theories'.
O well.
-- 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
