undefined | Better HN

0 pointsfoldr16y ago0 comments

>Yes, it would be a tautology if I had defined it in terms of progress.

And you did -- how else could you exclude developments in logic from the history of philosophy?

> But progress is the result of the methods and intention of the endeavors of science; falsifiability being one of them.

No-one has really thought that falsifiability is a contentful constraint on scientific theory formation for some time now (even Karl Popper basically abandoned the view in all but name).

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

brg16y ago· 1 in thread

"No-one has really thought that falsifiability is a contentful constraint on scientific theory formation for some time now"

This quote is a textbook case of someone parroting the fashions of philosophy to make noise instead of a point. To wit: it talks about undefined general opinion, it has dropped a "name" in lieu of evidence, and by focusing upon a vague "formation" of ideas instead of the "methods and intention" as quoted above, it could be interpreted as being being confined to a narrower scope than the original statement and thereby attempts avoid the statement it is attempting to supersede.

Most importantly, it digresses from what goes on in reality without bothering to consult it. Within the scope of the original statement, which is talking about the scientific method, the community is actively engaged in this discussion: http://www.google.com/search?q=is+string+theory+falsifiable

foldrOP16y ago

>it has dropped a "name" in lieu of evidence,

In more formal contexts that's called a "reference" or "citation". Here, if you can't be bothered to google for this stuff: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/

> To wit: it talks about undefined general opinion,

In what sense is it undefined? I'm talking about the general opinion in the philosophy of science. You can check that statement out by reading the relevant literature, if you don't believe me.

>Most importantly, it digresses from what goes on in reality without bothering to consult it. Within the scope of the original statement, which is talking about the scientific method, the community is actively engaged in this discussion: http://www.google.com/search?q=is+string+theory+falsifiable

If you actually read the paper in the first result of that search, it gives a reasonably good explanation of why falsifiability is a very fuzzy and indeterminate requirement. But if you really want to demonstrate that mainstream physics is seriously worrying about questions of falsifiability, you need to give links to journal articles.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse