Re: LOGO-L> constructionism

[Jeff <jeffr@mugc.cc.monash.edu.au>]

On Thu, 19 Feb 1998, Charles Hixson wrote:
> > The idea that there is a single
> > 'science' and that all areas of knowledge or means of pursuing it can be
> > judged 'scientific' or not, is not sustainable.
> I believe this statement to be wrong.  However, it is ALSO true that
> many things are true which cannot be scientifically proven (under the
> falsification criterion [criteria?]).  That is, Falsification is a VERY
> useful qualifier for a subset of knowledge, and perhaps it is an
> important enough subset to have the name "Science" applied to it. 
> Everything that is a member of this set is a part of what is normally
> acknowledged as Science. 
...the difficulty with this is that most of what I suspect you consider 
'part of science' is NOT a member of this set. While useful, 
falsification has limitations that make it inadequate even for Physics. 
The concepts of Force and Inertia did not arise from careful observation 
or the refutation of conjectures. What became Newtonian theory was 
perservered with in SPITE of apparent falsifications.

Jeff
---------------------------------------------------------------
Please post messages to the Logo forum to logo-l@gsn.org.  Mail
questions about the list administration to logofdn@gsn.org.  To
unsubscribe send    unsubscribe logo-l    to majordomo@gsn.org.