On 3/19/2013 10:37 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
No.
What means "truth value" of something? in which range of phenomena? in all phenomena
applicable? how you can test all phenomena applicable to a theory? you can't. The only
thing that you can do is to test a particular prediction that the theory predict that
may never happen (Popperian falsability)
Feyerabend demosntrated that not even that is possible, or at least unique, since the
perceptions or "facts" must be interpreted according with the theory. there is no fact
that is theory-free. A fact pressuposes a theory. So a theory and their perceptions are
a closed set, that may be autocoherent.
So there may be different theories for the same phenomena, each one with their
interpreted facts, that may have some kind of morphism between them. That is evidently
and pefectly exemplified now in some dualities of string theories, or between newtonian
and relativistic mechanics, or in a certain way, between heliocentrism and
geocentrisme. where agreeement between phenomena and ptolemaic theory, in the case of
heliocentrism, is maintained at the cost of a more complicated theory.
Then, to escape the Feyerabend trap, there is necessary additional criteria, such is the
economy of axioms or the Occam Razor as criteria for theory acceptance. Fortunately it
works, because it seems that we live in a simple, mathematical universe, which is
amazing per se.
Of course it works in the sense that the selected theory will save the facts, because you
only consider theories that are not contradicted by the facts - and if you are fortunate
enough to have more than one, then you consider Occams razor and esthetic criteria. But
you don't have to throw out all but one. You use esthetic criteria just to decide which
theory is most likely to lead further. A theory suggests new tests and more comprehensive
theories, so in general all of them: string-theory, loop-quantum-gravity, causal sets, are
pursued by different people. It is neither necessary or desirable to choose one and
nominate it THE TRUTH.
Brent
About opinions:
But all that one may know, even the facts, are subjective perceptions.
But opinions are about internal subjective perceptions,
That there are no scientific theory about some subjective perceptions (some internal
ones) does not say that these subjective perceptions can never be objects of scientific
study. Simply it means that at this historical moment there is no methods (or there is
resistance to them, since the rejection of common sense) that would make them testable
and scientific.
2013/3/19 Craig Weinberg <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
On Friday, March 8, 2013 11:11:38 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 3/8/2013 11:08 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi,
Is the following a sound claim?
"...scientifically meaningful propositions are questions about the
past, the
present, the future, or the eternal laws that:
* might in principle be both false and true
* admit a method, at least in principle, to evaluate their truth
values."
--
Is the following a sound claim?
"...examples of propositions that don't belong to science because one
of the
disqualifying conditions below holds:
* they're purely mathematical in character so they require no
empirical input
at all
* they're statements about fictional objects such as Hamlet that
can't be
decided from the only available data, in this case the text of
Hamlet
(there's no "real Hamlet" offering "additional data")
* they depend on subjective opinions and preferences"
--
They sound ok to me. Subjective opinions should not be included when the
topic of
consideration is subjectivity itself, but they should be understood as
expressions
of subjective phenomena.
Craig
Onward!
Stephen
PS, I am quotingSean Carroll <http://preposterousuniverse.com/>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to
[email protected]
<mailto:everything-list%[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
Alberto.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything
List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
[email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 2641/6173 - Release Date: 03/14/13
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
