[extropy-chat] against ID

[gts]

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 17:00:13 -0500, Damien Broderick  
<thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:

> At 04:40 PM 12/8/2005 -0500, gts wrote:
>
>> One interesting question is what to do about an observed anomaly to a
>> successful theory. Is the theory then automatically falsified?
>
> That's why I prefer Imre Lakatos to Popper: his model of "hard core"  
> postulates and their "protective belts" fits better with the way science  
> actually accommodates anomalies.

Perhaps you can explain to me how Lakatos' answer is superior to Popper's.

As I understand Popper, assuming accurate meaurements every observed  
anomaly falsifies *some* theory. The question is always "Which theory does  
this anomaly falsify?"

In the case of a planet such as Uranus orbiting contrary to how science  
predicted, the relevant theories were Newton's theory of gravity and the  
theory that the solar system consisted of seven planets with no other  
unseen matter.

Science proceeded correctly by falsifying the latter but not the former,  
because Newton's theory of gravity was a more universal and thus more  
valuable theory than the 7-planet theory. Neptune was theorized and later  
discovered.

Einstein later falsified Newton for similar reasons.

Forced to make a choice, we should always reject the least universal  
theory.

-gts