On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 5:42:36 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > 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 : >> >> 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 > > *All descriptions of reality are inadequate, Feyerabend said. "You think that this one-day fly, this little bit of nothing, a human being--according to today's cosmology!--can figure it all out? This to me seems so crazy! It cannot possibly be true! What they figured out is one particular response to their actions, and this response gives this universe, and the reality that is behind this is laughing! 'Ha ha! They think they have found me out!'"*
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/was-philosopher-paul-feyerabend-really-science-s-worst-enemy/ @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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/177da1b9-f8b8-4ccf-9033-578480ec6f9do%40googlegroups.com.
