More Lawrence Krauss-bashing on the net

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by mszlazak

Read my replies to "Interesting Ian."

You don't need induction for assuming things will work tomorrow all you need is the truth assumption that comes with a failed falsification.

You're just ignoring my central point. Since you're ignoring me I have nothing more to say.

[mszlazak]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

You're just ignoring my central point. Since you're ignoring me I have nothing more to say.

You're just ignoring my central point. Since you're ignoring me I have nothing more to say except that picking a "well tested theory" doesn't mean one that has gone through some inductivist, confirmationist or justificationist process. Also, I think the point is that induction has no logical validity, it's irrational and so dead from the get go. The other approach is rational and is connected to the notion of truth.

[mszlazak]

Updated my reply but I would need to check with the references I mentioned.

[mszlazak]

One issue I didn't address was the naturalistic objection to Popper's approach.

"... the history of science contains few episodes that conform to the simple-minded pattern of dicey conjectures and dusty refutations. The response is straightforward: since falsifiability is a demand, or proposal, not an empirical generalization, it is not open to refutation by the historical record."

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by mszlazak

One issue I didn't address was the naturalistic objection to Popper's approach.

"... the history of science contains few episodes that conform to the simple-minded pattern of dicey conjectures and dusty refutations. The response is straightforward: since falsifiability is a demand, or proposal, not an empirical generalization, it is not open to refutation by the historical record."

Has anyone objected to falsifiability in this thread? I haven't.

However it's clear that it does not accurate characterise scientific progress, and ought not to too! One can always dream up auxiliary hypotheses to save a theory from being falsified. Auxiliary hypotheses which might well transpire to be fruitful. Falsifiability certain has a substantial role to play though. But there's no such thing as the scientific method as such. Read Feyerabend.

[mszlazak]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

Has anyone objected to falsifiability in this thread? I haven't.

However it's clear that it does not accurate characterise scientific progress, and ought not to too! One can always dream up auxiliary hypotheses to save a theory from being falsified. Auxiliary hypotheses which might well transpire to be fruitful. Falsifiability certain has a substantial role to play though. But there's no such thing as the scientific method as such. Read Feyerabend.

Observation is fallible but the judgement that a hypothesis has been refuted must itself be open to testing and correction. This does not lead to infinite regress, since some hypotheses need fewer and weaker auxiliary hypotheses than others do to bring them down to the level of observational experience. The truth is that a well-designed experiment is one that in the face of a negative result leaves the theorist little option, beyond an aridly skeptical one, but to acknowledge that the hypothesis under test has been refuted.

So I don't see why you say it "ought not too."

Anyway, conclusive falsification is no less elusive than conclusive verification.

Also, what does Feyerabend have to do with what I've said about Critical Rationalism? He agrees that Popper corrected the logical form of general hypothesis testing.

[Carl Jung]

Originally Posted by mszlazak

There is no generally accepted theory of causation in physics. That is a metaphysics/philosophy topic. What is talked about in physics is causal factors and descriptive "laws" but not causation itself. At least that is my understanding of philosopher of science Hilary Putnam's paper "Is the Causal Structure of the Physical Itself Something Physical?" It can mostly be viewed here in a Google book review:

Is the Causal Structure of the Physical Itself Something Physical?

Causation is also coming up here in a similar way in this exchange between a physicist and "neo-Aquinas/neo-Aristotelian" favoring philosopher:

Oerter contra the principle of causality


---------------

Is it not strange that we still don't have a generally accepted theory of causation within physics?

Imagine what a mind David Hume must have had in order to see this before his 25th birthday almost three hundred years ago. It just boggles the mind. He must have been a genius of Kantian proportions.

How many have taken the time to read him? It is actually hard sweaty work trying to keep up with him.

[mszlazak]

Originally Posted by Carl Jung

Is it not strange that we still don't have a generally accepted theory of causation within physics?

Imagine what a mind David Hume must have had in order to see this before his 25th birthday almost three hundred years ago. It just boggles the mind. He must have been a genius of Kantian proportions.

How many have taken the time to read him? It is actually hard sweaty work trying to keep up with him.

I believe that there are a few if not quite a few modern philosophers that do not hold him in that high regard and in fact some hold him in quite low regard in certain respects.