Detached9

Can a metholodogy ever validate itself or invalidate itself? Wouldn't it be circular to assume it would be true?

Empiricism can't empirically validate empiricism. Reason can't be used to validate reason.

How do you solve this dilemma?

pug846

A methodology can be shown to be inconsistent with itself.

You can’t solve this dilemma – unless of course you don’t hold consistency as a part of your worldview.

BLoggins02

This problem is similar to Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. Those interested in these kinds of questions would probably like the book Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas R. Hofstadter, although most of you probably already know this

Theophage

Looking at the problem more generally, you cannot validate X with X, but perhaps you can validate X with Y. But then the question simply becomes, with what can we validate Y?

Ultimately you have to come to brute facts and axiomatic assumptions. There has to be some base system Z such that it is self evident and does not need validation. But then could Z be wrong? Sure, but that's just the kind of uncertainty that we humans have to live with.

Nutters will tell you that since you can't be sure of Z, you can't be sure of anything, so you might as well believe in Q too. Don't listen to them.

Daniel "Theophage" Clark

[ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: Theophage ]</p>

Detached9

That's exactly what I've been hearing.

Draygomb

The Scientific Method seems to validate its self while the asertion that no negatives can be proven invalidates its self.

Logic is Logical

jpbrooks

I'm not sure that it is possible to discuss the validation of a methodology apart from its presuppositions. If this is the case, then that may provide a way to comfirm a methodology.
A consistent methodology would be (by stipulation) consistent with its set of (basic) assumptions. So, it would remain to show which sets of assumptions were inconsistent. Doing this would leave a set of (possible) consistent sets of assumptions from which Z presupposes the set that provides the most comprehensive view of the empirical data.
A methodology would have to allow for this kind of validation in order to be able to validate itself.

[ January 30, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

Francois Tremblay

Obviously an epistemic method cannot be proved true or false, since any proof requires an epistemic method. Much the same is true for any other method. You need to check if the premises are correct and validate the method in question.

Vorkosigan

What does "true" or "false" mean? Give a useful and reliable picture of reality? Produce lots of money and sex for a tiny circle of powerful authoritarian leaders? Make me feel good about myself?

Obviously one needs a value in order to determine which epistemic method one wants to utilize to perform a given task. But what can "truth" mean in this context?

Michael

phaedrus

Values and truth-claims

Zigjackly, "value" is used to privilege a particular method and "truth" is defined by the value