On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 12:38:08 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > 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 >
When the extraterrestrials come with their science orders of magnitudes beyond ours that makes us look like little ants just building anthills, then we will see who the jerks are. @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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fff5dafc-b54f-4ae7-8db2-29b91ad13baco%40googlegroups.com.
