On 6/8/2020 2:24 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 2:32:26 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 6/7/2020 11:21 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 10:00:46 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
It predicts everything, so it predicts nothing. AG
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2020/05/predictions-are-overrated.html
<http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2020/05/predictions-are-overrated.html> :
Predictions are overrated
<https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Mw6w74p3ZYk/XrA-FY5otOI/AAAAAAAAFMU/WiQ7KPBKkekS-DQDW09BgFF_-J92CfS3QCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/fortune-teller-2.jpeg>
She writes, "If I have a scientific theory, it is either a good
description of nature, or it is not." But that is just avoiding
the question, which is how do we tell a theory that is a good
description from a theory that is a bad description. Popper says
making wrong predicitons means the theory is bad. He didn't say
making correct predictions make a theory good...although
Hossenfelder's made-up counter examples pretend that he did.
Obviously there are other criteria for a good theory: Consilience
with other good theories. Broad scope of application. Precise
and unambiguous predictions. Clarity and ease of
comprehension. Hossenfelder advocates "explanatory power" as a
better critereon. I think the preceding are what constitute
explantory power in the scientific sense. Without that
qualification things like "God did it" or "It's all simulated
inside arithmetic" have perfect explanatory power.
Brent
It's not clear, but a point she has made before is that although
general relativity has a bunch of "confirmation" success, it is
(literally) "wrong" (for very small stuff anyway), and quantum
mechanics, which also has "confirmation" successes, is is incomplete.
So both are ultimately failed theories.
I think that's strange meaning of "failed". 90% of (very successful)
engineering is based on Newton and Maxwell. We will never /*know */we
have an ultimately successful theory even if we do have it.
Brent
Physicists who leap from the the "success" of the mathematics in the
theories to claims about what physical stuff really is are clueless
(in her view).
But as Jim Baggott has said (in a tweet), she is a sloppy writer.
@philipthrift
@philipthrift
--
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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f3405b30-dfe9-4e64-9332-0dcd77a8ca9fo%40googlegroups.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f3405b30-dfe9-4e64-9332-0dcd77a8ca9fo%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c3efbd25-5ffa-6b12-4a2e-4d7e532cb3e9%40verizon.net.
