ghibbsa: falsification, testing, calculating and the entire kaboodle of our scientific (?) handling is restricted to the PRESENTLY knowable. More than yesterday's and most likely less than tomorrow's. Whatever we conclude is a time-cut fragment what we consider the 'achievable' truth. Although we 'live on that' it is not worth the paperwork for theoretical efforts. think about it
On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 7:10 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm going to bullet point the key, hard-to-vary, components that may or > may not result in falsification. In doing so, I will be stating not my > personal preference, but the long standing convention. In light of this > faithfulness simply to what it actually is, I feel a little aggrieved by > the stream of unrelenting dismissiveness, resorts to claims of > unintelligibility on my part, allegations of ill motivation, irrelevance > and the rest of it. > > So I will bullet point it here, very briefly. And if the same individuals > want to continue the way they are going, I shall suggest they put their > money where their mouths are, and lay cash wager which one of us is > correct, and we shall take our dispute to some of the major and > esteemed leading scientists of our time. And then we shall see. > > Falsification. > > 1. A precise, non-trivial prediction must be found in a theory, with the > following two key characteristics: It says something NEW about the > world, that goes over and above an Explanation of that which we > already know. Second, that it may be formulated with complete separation > and independence from the theory from which it spawns, and stated entirely > within the pre-existing realm of the incumbent hard won knowledge already > in place. This is the first layer of separation. The theory from the > prediction, the prediction in terms of the incumbent theory of the world. > > 2. Second. The theorist has no SAY, more than any other person, in how > the prediction will be tested. The end to end process encapsulating all > components involved in the eventual lead up to an observation event, is > ENTIRELY outside the theory and the argumentations of the theorist. This is > the second layer of separation,. > > 3. Third, an even higher level of separation must be met, between the two > strands of science, on the one side being the source of the prediction and > on the other the source of the observation. As such, two distinctive > paradigms of science are necessary. If one is theory deriving, the other is > technological. If one is human creative, the other is empirical. If one > field produces the prediction, another field tests the prediction. Like > Physics, and astronomy. > > This is the multifolding degrees of separation that set us free from our > own delusions and dreams and imagings, that had dominated our condition > since the dawn of our and made us prisoners in palaces of ignorance which > no human had ever broken free of. It was only with this, this extreme > dedication to not believing a word of our own sayings, and trusting to > no-one that they could know let alone control the huge assumptions we all > would be sneaking through, without even knowing it, where there not these > multiple layers of separation for the first time...maybe in the whole > universe....set a kind free and opened an age of objective discovery. > > This matters. A lot. To everyone, all humans. It matters when someone > misconceives this fundamemental bedrock of science. It isn't ok for people > to make up their own meanings for falsification. It isn't virtuous at all > to write free passes. Because we could actually this precious beautiful > thing. And then all we would have is what we had before. Dreams and > delusions and priests and medicine men, and nothing that ever took root and > grew. > > So I am passion for this. I love science. I am loyal to science. I'm fine > with comp and whatever else anyone wants to believe. But let's remember and > allow ourselves to be reminded what is fundamental to the scientific > revolution. If someone needs to relearn the nature and distinctiveness of > falsification, there's no shame in that. But it isn't right to make our own > versions up, and say its the same, when it's stripped of the hard-to-vary > fundamental character of separation > > Let's lay bets if that's what it'll take. If Bruno stands by his claims > to falsifiability and the definitions he has attached to falsifiability. > Let's go to it..we can go all the way. Let's see what leading scientific > minds of our day think it is. > > > -- > 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. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
