Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author Vs Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Darwin, Ch. | Popper Vs Darwin, Ch. | Mayr I 87 PopperVsDarwinism: (Popper 1974): "no verifiable theory, but a metaphysical research program ...." this criticism was later revoked by Popper. >Darwinism, >Evolution. |
Po I Karl Popper The Logic of Scientific Discovery, engl. trnsl. 1959 German Edition: Grundprobleme der Erkenntnislogik. Zum Problem der Methodenlehre In Wahrheitstheorien, Gunnar Skirbekk Frankfurt/M. 1977 Mayr I Ernst Mayr This is Biology, Cambridge/MA 1997 German Edition: Das ist Biologie Heidelberg 1998 |
| Epiphenomenalism | Pauen Vs Epiphenomenalism | Pauen I 67 Property Dualistic Variants/Epiphenomenalism: recently: advantage: the renunciation of interactions is obvious from the perspective of property dualism, because this position then also becomes acceptable for physicalism and complies with multiple realizability. Multiple Realizability/Pauen: a variety of neural activity can cause one and the same mental state. (E.g. split brain: takeover by other areas). This is a problem for the identity theory and materialism. I 68 Property-Dualistic Variants/Epiphenomenalism/Pauen: E.g. we are repeatedly dealing with events in everyday life that are by far not causally effective with all their properties. It is not the sound of the ball that destroys the window pane. Explanation/Epiphenomenalism: then come only neuronal, not mental properties can be considered here. Epiphenomenalism Pauen: is, unlike the identity theory, not forced to assume that consciousness is "nothing but" electrochemical processes. I 69 VsEpiphenomenalism/Pauen: 1) The experiments by Libet are not without controversy. 2) Libet himself admits that there might still be a conscious veto even after the build-up of the potential. 3) Nothing else speaks against the act of will being identical with the neural process. It might not have an effect, but it might leave traces in the memory. 4) PopperVsEpiphenomenalism: theory of evolution: without effect the consciousness would have no selective advantage. I 70 EpiphenomenalismVsVs: certain intelligent processes can possibly only occur together with consciousness. But there is no independent evidence for this. There are also no theoretical arguments for the necessity to combine mental and neural properties. Empirically recognized relations would not indicate the necessity. However, it would be possible that certain neural activities that are de facto linked to consciousness, could also occur without consciousness. Insofar, epiphenomenalism has no argument against the evolutionary objection. VsEpiphenomenalism Pauen: 5) violates the deeply rooted intuition that mental states are causally effective. E.g. We believe that our feelings are the cause for us to speak of sensations. E.g. That beliefs are responsible for ensuring that we act according to our beliefs. VsEpiphenomenalism Pauen: the absence of consciousness remains completely inconsequential. I 71 Test/Evidence/Proof/Experiment/VsEpiphenomenalism/Pauen: it is questionable whether empirical evidence of a stable psychophysical correlation under the premises of epiphenomenalism could actually preclude the possibility of a disintegration of mental and neural processes. Test: trivially, a test can only confirm a hypothesis if it was negative as long as the hypothesis was wrong. An experiment that always yields a positive result, regardless of the accuracy of the hypothesis, cannot be a real test. E.g. normally, we would take the statement of a subject that they feel severe pain as evidence of the mental state. Under the premise of epiphenomenalism we cannot do this, though: here, the statement solely depends on neuronal processes. Now that we want to verify whether mental states are involved, it can precisely not be assumed that they (according to epiphenomenalism) usually are involved as a side effect. What would happen now if the hypothetical case occurred and the mental processes failed to take place? I 72 Since they are causally irrelevant, their absence cannot have an effect. I.e. the subject would also speak of their pain if they lacked the experience! Therefore, empirical tests are not suitable to preclude a dissociation of neural and mental states. This does not only affect the perspective of the third, but even that of the first person: the installation of memory traces is causally caused by the event; therefore, the process cannot be affected by the absence of causally irrelevant mental properties. Then I would have to believe to remember an experience that I never had. E.g. The epiphenomenalist should not even be irritated if a device indicates a state of pain that he does not feel. I 73 The reason is always the same: since mental states are causally irrelevant, their absence is, too. VsEpiphenomenalism/Pauen: with this, he jeopardizes our beliefs about the existence of mental states (which he actually does not deny). E.g. If there is no causal difference between pain and happiness, we could not distinguish them in memory and behavior either! I 109 Identity TheoryVsEpiphenomenalism/Pauen: makes the causal efficacy of mental processes without effort, because they simply are always physical processes as well. |
Pauen I M. Pauen Grundprobleme der Philosophie des Geistes Frankfurt 2001 |
| Evolution Theory | Verschiedene Vs Evolution Theory | Vollmer I 258 VsEvolution: the theory of evolution is circular: you can only "unroll" things that are already there. VollmerVsVs: the meaning of a term is never determined by etymology, but by definition, use, context. The term does not have the meaning that the Romans gave it when they coined it. >Change of concept. I 276 VsEvolution Theory: "Every adaptation requires a recognition of that to which it is to be adapted. Then the recognition of fitting is a circle." VollmerVsVs: it is not true at all that every adjustment requires recognition. Vsevolution Theory: not predictable VollmerVsVsVs: there is no compelling reason at all to use forecasting capability as a benchmark for the science of a theory. Vollmer: The goal of science is not prognoses, but explanations! I 277 VsEvolution Theory: "It is not falsifiable". For example, if one finds life on Mars, it is explained in evolutionary theory, if none is found, its absence or disappearance is also explained in evolutionary theory. (PopperVsEvolution Theory!) (s)Vs: For example, the not-being-damaged of a fallen cup can also be explained with the help of physics.) I 278 VsEvolution Theory: from the existence of characteristics one can only conclude that they allow and possibly enable life, but not that they promote it! Therefore, one cannot necessarily accept adaptation! (Roth, 1984). Especially one cannot claim that our previous survival proves the correctness of our view of the world! I 279 VollmerVsVsVs: that there are selection-neutral and even survival-damaging characteristics makes it probably an empirical question whether functionality is present in individual cases, but does not impair the fertility of that panselection maxim. The question "What for?" is always allowed in biology, even if it does not always find an answer. I 279 VsEvolution Theory: 1. The transfer of selection theory to the development of cognitive abilities can only succeed if there is objective truth and if knowledge is more useful than error. (Simmel, 1895). 2. Moreover, cognitive fits could also come about other than through self-adaptation, for example by the environment changing and itself adapting (by chance). 3. Correct mapping of the outside world obviously does not play a role in selection! Because there are so many species with "worse knowledge": plants are not "falsified" by the eye, the primordial eye not by the eagle eye, etc. I 282 VsEvolution Theory: can success guarantee truth? Truth/Simmel: actually goes the way of equating success with probation and probation with truth. >Pragmatism. evolutionary EpistemologyVsSimmel: it does not adopt this pragmatic approach. It makes a strict distinction between truth definition and truth criterion. Truth/Vollmer: Success is neither necessary nor sufficient, but is always indicative. Fitting can be determined without any recourse to selection or evolution. I 284 But one can also proceed the other way round: one finds that the contribution of the subject to knowledge is at least partly genetically determined. (Interaction). I 285 Reference/VsEvolution Theory: (e.g. Putnam): it is not clear which reference physical terms have at all! |
Vollmer I G. Vollmer Was können wir wissen? Bd. I Die Natur der Erkenntnis. Beiträge zur Evolutionären Erkenntnistheorie Stuttgart 1988 Vollmer II G. Vollmer Was können wir wissen? Bd II Die Erkenntnis der Natur. Beiträge zur modernen Naturphilosophie Stuttgart 1988 |
| Identity Theory | Popper Vs Identity Theory | Vollmer II 96 Eccles/PopperVsIdentity Theory: it is incompatible with the theory of evolution. If evolutionary advantages are realized already in the physical givenness, the "internal aspect" of consciousness, of the psychical world is no longer needed. Because if the physical structures already have this benefit, then the advantage would also exist if the structures did not have this inner aspect. (>Epiphenomenalism); more entries for >Eccles/Popper. |
Po I Karl Popper The Logic of Scientific Discovery, engl. trnsl. 1959 German Edition: Grundprobleme der Erkenntnislogik. Zum Problem der Methodenlehre In Wahrheitstheorien, Gunnar Skirbekk Frankfurt/M. 1977 Vollmer I G. Vollmer Was können wir wissen? Bd. I Die Natur der Erkenntnis. Beiträge zur Evolutionären Erkenntnistheorie Stuttgart 1988 Vollmer II G. Vollmer Was können wir wissen? Bd II Die Erkenntnis der Natur. Beiträge zur modernen Naturphilosophie Stuttgart 1988 |
| Popper, K. | Feyerabend Vs Popper, K. | I 74 Einstein/Popper/Feigl: FeyerabendVsPopper: Popper and Feigl have tried to make Einstein a naive falsificationist. In reality, Einstein puts "the reason of the thing" above the "verification by small effects". "... If no light deflection or perihelion were known, the theory would be convincing, because it avoids the inertial system. I 236 Falsification/FeyerabendVsPopper: that new observations disproved old ones and thus forced the establishment of a new astronomy is certainly not right for Copernicus. A process as complex as the "Copernican Revolution" cannot be traced back to a single principle. I 356 FeyerabendVsPopper: Popper considers science as a problem solution. This overlooks the fact that problems can be formulated incorrectly. II 82 PopperVsHegel: shows very laboriously that nonsensical consequences are obtained if the propositional logic is combined with Hegel. He concludes that Hegel must be eliminated. FeyerabendVsPopper: E.g. This is about as smart as calling for the theory of relativity to be eliminated, just because simple computers are no match for it. Hegel + propositional logic are nonsense. Why should precisely Hegel be blamed for this nonsense? Logic: incompatible also with the earlier quantum theory and with the differential calculus at the times of Newton... Explanation/Popper: explains "that the world of each of our theories can be explained by other worlds which are described by other theories." The doctrine of an ultimate reality collapses. II 119 FeyerabendVsPopper: but only because it does not correspond to his favorite methodology. But if it turns out that the world is finite, then we have an "ultimate reality." FeyerabendVsPopper: Vs "third world": it is populated with just as many different (and often incommensurate) entities as there are beliefs in the "Second World". Does not solve the problem of relativism, but conceals it. II 201 FeyerabendVsPopper: "mere propagandist." (His former teacher). |
Feyerabend I Paul Feyerabend Against Method. Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge, London/New York 1971 German Edition: Wider den Methodenzwang Frankfurt 1997 Feyerabend II P. Feyerabend Science in a Free Society, London/New York 1982 German Edition: Erkenntnis für freie Menschen Frankfurt 1979 |
| Popper, K. | Mayr Vs Popper, K. | V 80 MayrVsPopper: it is often very difficult, if not impossible, to convincingly falsify an unusable theory. The categorical statement that in a single falsification the entire theory is falsified does not apply to evolutionary biology. V 363 MayrVsPopper: Confusion of terms: early: "Do not let yourself be tempted to take problems seriously that are about words and their meaning. Later he contrasts meaning and truth. He claims that research on meaning leads to nothing and that science is only about approaching the truth. (>NaessVs: Knowledge/Naess). |
Mayr I Ernst Mayr This is Biology, Cambridge/MA 1997 German Edition: Das ist Biologie Heidelberg 1998 |
| Popper, K. | Putnam Vs Popper, K. | V 146 Popper/Putnam: predictions are confronted with "basis sentences" that are publicly accepted. VsPopper: one has criticized, he used a "conventionalist" language, as if the acceptance of a basic sentence would be a convention. >Protocol sentence. Putnam: in reality it is simply recognizing the fact of institutionalization. V 257/258 Method/Popper has suggested that one should accept the most falsifiable hypotheses of the alternative ones. PutnamVsPopper: but it turns out that the falsification varies, depending on which undefined predicates the language choses as a basis. Method/Science: it follows that there is still a necessity, (or the acceptance of a Bayesian "prior"), for a non-formal element that equals a Goodman-decision on the projectability. Here one may ask, how should we explain the success of science, if there is no method? It cannot be denied that science has been remarkably successful. Answer: there is probably a scientific method, but it assumes that you already have a concept of rationality. --- V 258/259 Rationality/Science/Putnam: It cannot be that a newly created method serves only to define what rationality actually is. --- V 260 Popper/Putnam: Claims, that there are rationality terms that are broader than the scientific rationality, and also valid for ethical decisions. PutnamVsPopper: it is not possible to test all theories with high falsifiability. --- V 261 Even his method involves such a thing as a previous selection. Also his calculations of falsfiability levels is not independet from what predicates that are chosen as a basis. >Method/Putnam. Popper/Putnam: could it not be that the Popperian method (as vague and non-formal as it may be) covers not only the concept of scientific rationality exhaustively but the entire concept of knowledge-based rationality? PutnamVsPopper: such a rationality view is even too narrow for science. E.g. it would exclude a theory that belongs to the most successful: the evolution. (Popper would accept this). evolution: is not high-falsifiable, and it does not imply any predictions. --- V 263 PutnamVsPopper: he even exaggerates the degree of falsifiability of theories of classical physics. >Falsification. Method/Science/Putnam: danger, to dilute the method more and more: if it says in the end: "perform experiments as carefully as possible, then conclude the best explanation, eliminate theories that can be falsified by experimenta crucis" then it can no longer be seen, what cannot be verified through such a vaguely described method. |
Putnam I Hilary Putnam Von einem Realistischen Standpunkt In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Frankfurt 1993 Putnam I (a) Hilary Putnam Explanation and Reference, In: Glenn Pearce & Patrick Maynard (eds.), Conceptual Change. D. Reidel. pp. 196--214 (1973) In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam I (b) Hilary Putnam Language and Reality, in: Mind, Language and Reality: Philosophical Papers, Volume 2. Cambridge University Press. pp. 272-90 (1995 In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam I (c) Hilary Putnam What is Realism? in: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 76 (1975):pp. 177 - 194. In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam I (d) Hilary Putnam Models and Reality, Journal of Symbolic Logic 45 (3), 1980:pp. 464-482. In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam I (e) Hilary Putnam Reference and Truth In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam I (f) Hilary Putnam How to Be an Internal Realist and a Transcendental Idealist (at the Same Time) in: R. Haller/W. Grassl (eds): Sprache, Logik und Philosophie, Akten des 4. Internationalen Wittgenstein-Symposiums, 1979 In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam I (g) Hilary Putnam Why there isn’t a ready-made world, Synthese 51 (2):205--228 (1982) In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam I (h) Hilary Putnam Pourqui les Philosophes? in: A: Jacob (ed.) L’Encyclopédie PHilosophieque Universelle, Paris 1986 In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam I (i) Hilary Putnam Realism with a Human Face, Cambridge/MA 1990 In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam I (k) Hilary Putnam "Irrealism and Deconstruction", 6. Giford Lecture, St. Andrews 1990, in: H. Putnam, Renewing Philosophy (The Gifford Lectures), Cambridge/MA 1992, pp. 108-133 In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam II Hilary Putnam Representation and Reality, Cambridge/MA 1988 German Edition: Repräsentation und Realität Frankfurt 1999 Putnam III Hilary Putnam Renewing Philosophy (The Gifford Lectures), Cambridge/MA 1992 German Edition: Für eine Erneuerung der Philosophie Stuttgart 1997 Putnam IV Hilary Putnam "Minds and Machines", in: Sidney Hook (ed.) Dimensions of Mind, New York 1960, pp. 138-164 In Künstliche Intelligenz, Walther Ch. Zimmerli/Stefan Wolf Stuttgart 1994 Putnam V Hilary Putnam Reason, Truth and History, Cambridge/MA 1981 German Edition: Vernunft, Wahrheit und Geschichte Frankfurt 1990 Putnam VI Hilary Putnam "Realism and Reason", Proceedings of the American Philosophical Association (1976) pp. 483-98 In Truth and Meaning, Paul Horwich Aldershot 1994 Putnam VII Hilary Putnam "A Defense of Internal Realism" in: James Conant (ed.)Realism with a Human Face, Cambridge/MA 1990 pp. 30-43 In Theories of Truth, Paul Horwich Aldershot 1994 SocPut I Robert D. Putnam Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community New York 2000 |
| Popper, K. | Vollmer Vs Popper, K. | II 84 VsInteractionism/VsEccles: where does the interaction take place? Eccles: in the "liaison areas" VollmerVsEccles: this is of course only a shift: where are the "liaison areas" located? How does the interaction come about? Eccles/Popper: (monism) Thesis: the self-confident mind is active in reading from the multitude of active centers at the highest level of brain activity...directing its attention to these centers and integrating its selection so that even the most fleeting experiences are brought together into one unit. The self-confident mind also works by changing the spatiotemporal pattern of neuronal processes ...the searchlight offers an analogy. A scanning device, a probe... II 85 VollmerVsEccles/VollmerVsPopper: nothing is gained by vague analogies. Nor does he make any suggestion as to how his hypotheses should be tested. What he thinks is new is the independent activity of the mind, the search for uniform interpretation. But that is exactly what we want to explain! This is reminiscent of the e.g. explanation of the telegraph principle: "It's like a dachshund: if you pinch at the back, it barks at the front". "And what about wireless telegraphy?" "Just like that, but without the dachshund." I 74 Evolutionary Epistemology/EE/Vollmer: does not describe the evolution of knowledge (like Popper) but our abilities. I 75 VollmerVsPopper: his theory of world 3 and his body soul dualism are not compatible with the evolutionary epistemology. I 278 LewontinVsPopper: a theory that does not make forecasts can be testable, and thus empirical! VollmerVsPopper: it could be shown that selection theory makes verifiable predictions! Popper has long since withdrawn his criticism of the theory of evolution! |
Vollmer I G. Vollmer Was können wir wissen? Bd. I Die Natur der Erkenntnis. Beiträge zur Evolutionären Erkenntnistheorie Stuttgart 1988 Vollmer II G. Vollmer Was können wir wissen? Bd II Die Erkenntnis der Natur. Beiträge zur modernen Naturphilosophie Stuttgart 1988 |
| |||