[extropy-chat] Popper and QT.

Damien Broderick thespike at satx.rr.com
Fri Jul 14 18:51:41 UTC 2006


At 01:18 PM 7/14/2006 -0400, John K Clark wrote:

>According to Popper's own holly dogma

I'm unfamiliar with Popper's theology of Christmas decoration.

>that idea is nonsense because it can
>never be disproved.

Not so; for Popper an assertion that can't be tested is not 
nonsensical or meaningless (as the logical positivists claimed), it 
is simply unscientific. He recognized that there are many interesting 
and valuable assertions about our experience that are not scientific.

>  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.

At least two Nobel prize-winning scientists -- Sir Peter Medawar and 
Sir John Eccles -- acknowledged Popper's analysis of scientific 
method as a significant and indeed unique contribution to their 
award-winning work.

Damien Broderick 




More information about the extropy-chat mailing list