Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

Title: “Many people consider the things government does for them to be social progress but they regard the things government does for others as socialism

Sir Karl Popper was one of most influential philosophers of science of the 20th century who brought logic and precision to the scientific method as applied mostly to the social and sciences and economics, he was also a professor of economics at the London School of Economics. It also has applications to biological and medical sciences. Although it clearly is applicable to all sciences the issues with pseudo-science was mostly in the social sciences and economics. Popper's work is basically required reading in most economic programs.

Nothing below is unique to Popper except 3.  Popper advanced empirical falsification as the key for scientific investigation. Popper's prime example was the "Black Swan." The state "There are not Black Swans" can never be completely "proved," however, it can be falsified - by finding a black swan (and there are such things although rare).

However, the writer below carries Popper's work a little far - for their own purposes. And Bruck you are wring - this has nothing to do with logic in that the argument proposed by the poster is  not a logical argument. There have been many examples of "well accepted" theories that have proved to be false as instrumentation became capable of falsifying them. The theory of "aether" support light waves is one such famous theory. Then there was Einsteins that was first "disproved" then disavowed by Einstein later to be reinstated as a prime component of our understanding of the universe.

Science is a method and it is a trip. As we learn more we refine our understanding of the world around us. Intuition by trained individuals is a valuable and vital link in that process.  It is, however, the new thrust of "evidence based medicine" is no more than Popper dusted off and applied (without proper attribution I must add).

Personally I don't see any evidence that we need to revisit the concept of a gate into a hold.

Bruce Weary DC wrote:

 It is a common strategy here to call for "research" to "prove" that a current practice in endurance riding (in this case vet holds) has either been shown to be effective or not. Knowing that conclusive research findings are rare in our sport,  the intent is often to try to show that if there is no bona fide scientific proof for how things are currently being done, that we should then be free to change our methods to a more preferred way of doing things, presumably without worry of any harm from doing so. This is a common mistake in logic, and I found the passage below that may help clarify how science attempts to help us understand our world, and it's limitations as a resource for "proving" things. Calling on science to either support a given position, or to refute another, cuts both ways. I like the phrase near the bottom that says "....what we look for is a preponderance of support for our current belief." In our case, regarding vet holds, that would include veterinary experience and advice, as well as historical success. Doesn't mean that things can't be changed for the better, but how we get there is sometimes a more windy road than it first appears.   Enjoy.    Bruce Weary


"Scientific proof, whenever introduced or suggested, should immediately be questioned.

According to Popperian theory (a philosopher of science and the scientific method), proof can never be attained through scientific endeavor. This is because science proceeds by refutation of a given hypothesis, and can never be affirmative.

Thus, good scientific research is conducted in the following manner:

  1. Determine the system of interest and its boundaries.
  2. Collect all the relevant information (from the literature, other
     scientists, etc.) in order to be able to proceed to step three
     /intelligently./
  3. Propose an hypothesis for study. This hypothesis must (or should)
     be simple, exhaustive and refutable. Ideally, it should be a
     question to which the answer is yes, no or a number, and after the
     experiment is completed (provided it is performed well), either
     the hypothesis is refuted or it is left intact.
  4. If the hypothesis is refuted, return to step 2 and reconsider.
     Then proceed to step 3.
  5. If the hypothesis is not refuted, then return to step 1 and
     consider modifying the system of interest.

--

“Many people consider the things government does for them to be social progress but they regard the things government does for others as socialism.” Earl Warren, former Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court