On 11/18/2014 4:57 PM, LizR wrote:
On 19 November 2014 06:45, meekerdb <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:On 11/18/2014 5:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:On 17 Nov 2014, at 21:13, meekerdb wrote:On 11/17/2014 2:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:The bible explains better (if we assume it is correct)And if it isn't correct it doesn't explain anything. Which is why science seeks to test correctness prior to explanatory power.Ideally, or FAPP, perhaps. But fundamentally, science cannot test correctness, not even define it properly.Are you saying that a theory cannot be tested an found incorrect??I would think the obvious way to parse what Bruno has said here is "science cannot show that something is correct".
Is that right, Bruno? Of course empirical tests are better at showing a theory is wrong than showing it's right, which is Popper's observation.
I'm curious as to how you define correctness properly? Brent -- 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.
