On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 10:25:41 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > 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 >
This guy's a "philosopher"? He's just a jerk and you shouldn't waste our time with this total crap! AG -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/00de7a8e-1b82-40fc-8721-e98d1baecf96o%40googlegroups.com.
