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

[Samantha Atkins]

On Jul 14, 2006, at 10:18 AM, John K Clark wrote:

> 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.

Hmm.  The above is a truism.  Approximate ranges all the way up to 100%.

> 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.

With neither giving 100% approximation with the observed facts.

> 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.


This is odd.  Popper was not remotely in the same field as Einstein.   
Einstein did not attempt to explain "the world".  He worked on  
certain aspects of reality.   Noting how science as an enterprise  
works or particular aspects of how it works is not at all the same as  
actually doing science.

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

It isn't the same task of course.  A "philosopher of science" is not  
equivalent to a "scientific philosopher" either.

- samantha