In proposing the test of "falsifiability," Mr. Popper my have had a right idea, but a wrong, flawed attitude. Employing the attack posture, he indulged in a popular bias, an "Ad Hominem." He assumed, as many do, that if someone is wrong that makes him right. But if in fact, if and when he is proven wrong, well,....., maybe his head explodes.
For the likes of the often wrong positivists, like our friend Karl Popper, science is not supposed to be inductive. Even the smallest disproof supposedly makes a proposition, falsifiable. Well technically yes. No point arguing. There is supposedly no such thing as mostly right. Were this true however, there would be now point in refining an inaccuracy. I would have to assume that when I start from scratch with one of my graphic designs, that if I find that an equation does not perform for me, then the equation must be flawed. This powerful software that I use can render one of my projections asymmetrically even when the equation is clearly symmetrical. I often have to use a template out of the examples file that comes with the calculator, in order to get it to do what it was obviously designed to do. This may have nothing to do with the limitations of the software. I just like pushing the experimental boundaries. There is a tendency for elements to be misread by the software, as if the iterations were being started from non-equivalent indices. Many of my pictures are supposed to look like lace or some other crystal like structure. Without perfect "Sysygy, symmetry will not happen. Were I to take it personally I might mistakenly believe that because a process is unrepeatable then it must have been pseudo-scientific. Granted trial and error does come down to repeatable experimentation but inductive reason is critical to inventing hypothetical propositions in the first place. Were we to confuse process with results we might be looking at the very definition of confirmation bias. (If I don't see it then it must not be worth looking at.) Software, like people have preferences.
As you can imagine, people often expect me to believe in palm reading just because I love pushing the experimental boundaries? Am I always right. Ha! But I'm getting paid for the service of being true to the software fully aware of it's limitations diagnostically as well as authoritatively. Actually the "Reading Technology," holds up surprisingly well when used as the front end analytic for identifying signature features for statistical comparison. Iterating index variables for elements of matrices is at the center of systems analysis of comparative modeling. (Blah, Blah,..... Blah.) I may love and even understand what I'm looking at but it's not up to me to prove anything. For that I charge extra for classes.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Is there anybody out there?