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

[John K Clark]

gts <gts_2000 at yahoo.com>

> Popper for example would probably question even your
> suggestion that scientific facts can be discovered.

So in other words you don't think Popper was very bright.

> his contention was always that scientists can hope only to
> arrive at  theories that approximate those objective facts.

According to Popper's own holly dogma that idea is nonsense because it can
never be disproved. As for me, I believe it is a fact that Einstein's 
physics comes closer to describing the way the world works than Newton's
physics. If Popper wanted to convince me his philosophy had real value all
he'd have to do is come up with a theory that explained the world better
than Einstein; if he really has a deep and unique perception of how science
really works it should be easy.

If they're really on to something then why aren't great scientific
philosopher's also great scientists?

  John K Clark