PHIL: Justificationalism (Was: Dynamic Optimism as a tool in logical reasoning)

From: Menno Rubingh (rubingh@delftnet.nl)
Date: Sun Jan 16 2000 - 08:02:21 MST


On Sat, 15 Jan 2000, Enigl@aol.com wrote:

> You do not know it, but you _are_ a justificationlist. You are _not_ a
> Popperian non-justificationalist.

OK, fine ! Be it so. I can live with being called a justificationalist. :-)

> Make up a new word for this concept or call them "survivors."

OK, that would seem to be a fine solution. I like this "survivors"
terminology !! It is nonsense to say that a theory is 'true' or 'false', one
should say that the theory is a 'survivor' or 'non-survivor' meme. Nice !!

---
> that sounds pessimistic BUT WAIT . . .  THAT MEANS justification is not 
> needed to get helpful theories!  That _is_ Dynamically Optimistic!  
I agree that it would be nice to get along with as simple and sparse a tool 
set as possible.  I agree that IF it were possible to do without 
justificationalism, that this would be good, and that this would be an advance 
of science; and that IF justificationalism were unnecessary it would therefore 
be a D.O. thing to junk justificationalism.  But you did *not* explain here 
*why* justificationalism is unnecessary, you only quoted authorities who say 
so.  
Again thanking you for your literature pointers, I however suspect I would 
disagree with those non-justificationalist authorities you quote just as much 
as I disagree with you, because having read some things by Popper who you say 
is an non-justificationalist, I still don't seem to get the message.  (Reading 
the justificationalist writers you quote would not help either, because I 
would agree with them anyway.)  Since I'm not on a mailing list with any of 
those authorities but am on a mailing list with you, I'm trying to use direct 
conversation with you as a means to uncover some wisdom on this subject. 
Can you explain to me please, WITHOUT using referral to 'authorities' as your 
only arguments, exactly WHY using positive/supportive proof is unnecessary and 
maybe even wrong/bad ?  If it is so obvious to you that justificationalism is 
wrong, then that should mean that it should also be easy for you to explain 
why.  E.g., can you explain with the use of a simple example from everyday 
life ? 
> but empirical tests (controlled experiments) that weed 
> out the errors and therefore find the surviving and helpful theories _are_ 
> worthwhile.
Again, I fully agree that criticizing *is* necessary and useful !!  But I 
still don't see how it might be possible to do science with criticism as your 
*only* tool -- i.e., without using also sometimes more constructive tools. 
How do you invent the candidate theories with which you start out in the 1st 
place ?  Criticizing (in your sense of the term) does not seem to be a tool 
that can be used to invent those new candidate theories.  
Best greetings,   Menno (rubingh@delftnet.nl)


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:26:16 MST