OK. to start the debate about current debates 23/2/95
All this stuff about hermeneutic circles grabbed my interest as a
person healthily cynical about Freud, Astrology, etc.
It seems to me that the major issue in the debate should be predictive
validity. Any complex phenomenon can be explained via a range of
different theories. "Post hoc" explanations are the fitting of theory
to the observations. This may be a valuable exercise in itself, but the
only way to compare the usefulness of alternative theories is to
examine their predictive ability.
An example - Astrology.
"X happened because planet Y was in the ascendent"
This is difficult to either confirm or falsify.
However, a stronger test is:
"planet Y is in the ascendent, therefore X will
happen".
To return to Freud. My problem with Freudian theory is that it has an
answer to everything. In terms of explaining the past - Freud was a
master. However, the predictive value of his theory is virtually nil.
My point is that hermeneutic circles could be avoided almost entirely
if predictive validity was the criterion that theories were judged on.
Astrology is a prime example. If its business is telling the future,
then judging its value should be possible through measuring its
accuracy. Clive James (TV show) was told by an astrologer in Bombay
that he would suffer a heart attack in 1996. Here is a starting point
for assessing the value of astrology.
The problem then is making testable predictions.
Astrology again: "money will be important in the next
week" is meaningless. "you will win ten thousand in
a game of chance" is testable.
Anyway, will someone please be kind enough to tell me if I've
completely missed the point. Cheers, Rich.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Feb 13 2001 - 16:23:15 GMT