| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
With regards both Peter's recent postings... I think I agree with you. JJ --- Peter Paul Smolka <smolka@uni-muenster.de> wrote: > On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, John Jackson wrote: > [snip] > > ...but perhaps crystalised Popper is enough: > > > > Evidence is NOT observation(s) "somewhat" > compatible > > with one theory, but observation(s) better > predicted > > or explained by one theory than another. > > > > Interpreting the first lines of K. Burton I would > deduce for > a well-known example: > > Internationally recognized and confirmed by a US > governmental panel > there is no evidence for weapons of > mass-destructions in Iraq. > > (= there is absence of evidence). > > Above is however not evidence of absence as: > > An already ready-made nuclear bomb might still be > lying under the > rose-flowers of a kindergarten (4 m depth) in some > village somewhere > in Iraq. This applies of course to any other contry > in the world as > well, including California, Mexico, Monaco and San > Marino, formulated > with a polite smile). > > Only if a technology exists that, for example > airborne, scans the whole > country with a sufficient resolution sufficiently > deep one can be sure > that there are no such things (applies of course > also for any > old cargo-ship / sailing-yacht approaching > Washington). > (= then we have evidence of absence, until that: > Good hope). > > Thus for safety the initial statement bears, > according to my view, > much more relevance to daily life than often > considered: > Most car accidents by the way would not happen, if > people would drive > accordingly (= between the reach of visibility, e.g. > where doubt begins, > always the reasonably worst has to be assumed such > as an approaching > car-driver having had a heart attack or being > alcoholized until > through measurement > (visible data) it is falsified). > > An interpretation (absence of evidence) pulling for > example > large shallow water reefs in the subboreal Pliocene > North Atlantic > (absence of evidence) I would for example not > consider > to be realistic. Thus I think above > "safety-principle", as K. Burton > pointed out, should only be violated in extreme > cases with > utmost care (for example if tentatively, in the form > of a hypothesis, > time-series are bridged accross unconformities with > the help of > neural-network programs, consistency tests with > wells around these > points). > > > > > > > Cordially, > > > > JJ > > > > > http://www.geocities.com/strangetruther/picphilos1.html > > > Best regards, Peter and: > > > > The phrase "Peer review" is absent from the > indexes of > > the best-known books on phil. of sci., as it is > merely > > a method of limiting and abusing the principle of > open > > discussion and comparison of theories, for the > benefit > > of editors and established academics. However, > the > > word "evidence" is also absent from Popper's main > two > > books on the subject! Might you Niko be in a > position > > to comment on whether this is because the word > does > > not exist in German? I've seen English-German > > dictionaries where equivalent translations are > given > > but I can't judge them. > > > > Thankyou for encouraging calibration of the > thinking: > > on http://dict.leo.org (e.g. without www) for > evidence > quite a lot of German words appear including those > which > I expected. > > I used however a misunderstandable formulation in > the previous > reply (example with Pliocene reefs (absent) in the > northern North > Atlantic). > > I referred to reefs of the Great Barrier Reef type. > > Deep water reefs with Lophohelia sp. exist in that > region today. > > > > > > > Must stop now, Dr Who part 2 is on. I won't bother with parts 3... > > And what I planned for this evening as well. > > > > Cheers, > > > > JJ > > Best regards > > Peter > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates. http://personals.yahoo.com
Partial index: