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 <whatsons...@gmail.com <mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com>>



    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
    everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
    <mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
    To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
    <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>.
    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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to