On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 12:46:34 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > 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 >
Do us all a favor and cease posting crap from wannabe philosophers. 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/1060306b-ff7e-4957-971d-a54cd6c0c5e8o%40googlegroups.com.
