Well, since then I have found many things that are new to me. One of the best blogs online is Terence Tao's. It's neat to see the web of mathematics tied. In addition to wonderful expository notes, interesting alternative proofs and statements of open questions from all over mathematics, the simple shorthand created by being able to linking to Wikipedia to have explanations of a concept tangential to the author's point can turn a post into something the equal of a textbook. The broad range of topics covered by Tao also gives much to recommend.
If one wants a little more time wasting fun to math, then the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has some great articles. Popper has always interested me when I think about my physicist hat. There is good criticism to make about details of his approach. Namely, that Popper left out the importance of error analysis in both The Logic of Scientific Discovery and Realism and The Aim of Science and led poor Lakatos completely in the wrong direction. Take the following critique:
"Popper himself is fond of citing ... the anomalous orbit of Uranus posed for nineteenth century astronomers. ... [A]ssuming Newtonian mechanics to be precisely correct, the observed divergence in the elliptical orbit of Uranus could be explained if the existence of a seventh, as yet unobserved outer planet was posited. Further, they were able, again within the framework of Newtonian mechanics, to calculate the precise position of the ‘new’ planet. Thus when subsequent research by Galle at the Berlin observatory revealed that such a planet (Neptune) did in fact exist, and was situated precisely where Adams and Leverrier had calculated, this was hailed as by all and sundry as a magnificent triumph for Newtonian physics: in Popperian terms, Newton's theory had been subjected to a critical test, and had passed with flying colours. Popper himself refers to this strong corroboration of Newtonian physics as ‘the most startling and convincing success of any human intellectual achievement’. Yet Lakatos flatly denies that there are critical tests, in the Popperian sense, in science, and argues the point convincingly by turning the above example of an alleged critical test on its head. What, he asks, would have happened if Galle had not found the planet Neptune? Would Newtonian physics have been abandoned, or would Newton's theory have been falsified? The answer is clearly not, for Galle's failure could have been attributed to any number of causes other than the falsity of Newtonian physics (e.g., the interference of the earth's atmosphere with the telescope, the existence of an asteroid belt which hides the new planet from the earth, etc)."
Now, if this critique worked, it would be pretty devastating for the practicality of Popper's program - and Popper always emphasized this practicality (rediscovering and using the Pragmatic theory of truth? I kind of doubt it). But Lakatos's argument hinges on something that should not just be accepted as plain truth that "(e.g., the interference of the earth's atmosphere with the telescope, the existence of an asteroid belt which hides the new planet from the earth, etc)" would have been accepted. First of all, it requires proof that Galle could not control for deviations in the Earth's atmosphere (that is, a proof of his incapability of error analysis). The existence of an asteroid belt is not a neutral position at all, but a rival theory. Not only must it be tested but it must be tested in the same way!
In addition, Lakatos seems to be assuming that an ontological commitment to Newton's Laws is stronger than a practical commitment to empirical standards. Would the experimentalists give up a method to please us theorists? An interesting historical case for philosophers is the question of the existence of atoms. Chemists (playing the role of experimentalists) have believed in them since Dalton in 1803, while some physicists hoped they could be eliminated as mere intuition enhancing artifacts as late as 1908! This 105 year controversy should give an aspiring philosopher a good playground for testing proposals of standards.
Popper is also responsible for modernizing the idea of pseudoscience. Bad science is responsible for a lot of pain, like what Lysenkoism did to genetics and agriculture under the Soviets. However, I don't think it's as all-fired important as Popper does. Lysenkoism was bad because it was wrong, not because it was pseudoscientific. Isn't that enough? A more thorough study might look at how the Soviet structure supported Lysenkosim (or how the Catholic Church supported Ptolemyism or how Freudianism was supported by 50's corporate culture), but it would not be much help to a practicing scientist.
Oh, I haven't yet mentioned Popper's interesting work in the foundations of the social sciences (in his book The Poverty of Historicism), demonstrating the impossibility of genuine general social prediction, and by extension showing that this cannot be the goal for a social science. This part of his theory makes hogwash of many older ideas of history and has never been successfully rebutted. His books The Open Society and Its Enemies are nice books about social philosophy, making the novel argument that democracy's superiority over, say, a Voltaire-ian enlightened dictatorship is democracy's ability to do and un-do without violence. It would be interesting to test his ideas using theories of decentralized control (I cannot give a real analysis because I lack real knowledge of that area). Is the complexity of changing a democratic system a greater difficulty than regulating an country with the extreme information poverty that a dictator must be in? Is the question identical for centrally planned (i.e. Soviet) and decentrally planned (i.e. capitalist) economies? Popper thought so, though his friend Frederich Hayek believed that centrally planned governments with decentrally planned economies were superior.
Phew! That's enough damn Popper.
I've discovered that many of the old Charlie Chan movies are on YouTube! Charlie Chan at The Olympics, Charlie Chan in Egypt and Charlie Chan at Monte Carlo are all very fun. Some people think that Chan's sedentary and unassuming nature are a bit of a stereotype, but I disagree. In any case, you might notice that the actually Asian man in these movies - Keye Luke as Lee Chan - is vigorous and athletic.
This beautiful song by Billy Strayhorn is given an amazing performance by Johnny Hodges and a characteristically astounding arrangement by Strayhorn's great mentor Ellington. The world is full of wonderful music, and we moderns have more access to it than anyone in all history. Take this obscure piece by Mozart that must be performed on an instrument that went out of fashion shortly after his death. ~7,000 people have heard this one version. Do you think that anyone ever heard it in the century after his death? How many do you think heard it in his life?
Well, hopefully I'll get myself to post more regularly now.
0 comments:
Post a Comment