[extropy-chat] Fwd: Re: Popper and QT.

[gts]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 13:27:28 -0400, John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:

> Unlike a moral philosopher there is a simple way far a a scientific
> philosopher to prove he is right, he could just use his theory about how
> science works to discover some new scientific fact.

I don't find that test very convincing. Popper for example would probably
question even your suggestion that scientific facts can be discovered.
Although he was a realist who believed in factual objective reality, his
contention was always that scientists can hope only to arrive at theories
that approximate those objective facts.

(Ignore my second paragraph in my private email to you, John. We agree on  
that point; I merely misread your words. I agree that moral philosophers  
have an almost impossible burden of proof.)

-gts