5 ms·
Good explanation. Another way to say it is that String Theory (if it stands for anything)represents something like 2^500 possible theories (I forget the actual
by dmfdmf 7y ago
Good explanation. Another way to say it is that String Theory (if it stands for anything)represents something like 2^500 possible theories (I forget the actual exponent) and if the experiment rules out 1/2 of those theories there are still 2^499 alternatives to go, so not much of a test really.
>Now, “falsification” itself is a silly/naive cartoon-ish framework for how to do science.
Unfortunately, Popper's "theory" has become the dominant go to for epistemology of Science today. Many scientists now think science=falsifiability which is wrong. Popper over generalized a narrow method and elevated it to a global and distinguishing characteristic of the scientific method. Popper's error itself was based on the assumption that logic=Deduction (i.e. identifying a contradiction is our only means to "truth") and completely ignored Induction which is the real problem in epistemology. You can't prove something false without first knowing what is true. Knowledge or truth is not what is left over after you prove everything else false which is an impossible task anyway.
- araara 7y agoSorry, can you define deduction for me? The way you're using it seems different to the ways I've seen it used elsewhere.
- dmfdmf 7y agoIt is hard to answer your question without knowing your context. I'll assume you have had a formal logic course which usually teaches the deductive syllogism. For example; P1: All men are mortal. P2: Socrates is a man. Ergo: Socrates is mortal. So this is one of the standard forms of a deductive syllogism (there are many others). The basic idea is that if you accept that premises 1 & 2 are true then the inference must follow otherwise your thinking includes a contradiction. E.g. All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, but if you think that Socrates is immortal then it implies a contradiction so one or both of your premises are wrong or your belief that Socrates is immortal is wrong. In formal logic courses in college they swamp you with all the variants of the deductive syllogism and what gets lost is that they are all based on Aristotle's Law of Identity. The Law of Identity basically says "A is A", a thing that exists is what it is and that contradictions cannot exist. So if you find a contradiction in your thinking then you have gone off the rails somewhere in that process. So Popper's falsifiability principle is implicitly based on deductive logic which in turn is based on Aristotle's Law of Identity. Popper's mistake was ignoring induction or generalization which is evident even in the syllogism above. The premise "All men are mortal" is a generalization not a deductive conclusion; where do these premises come from? So deduction (and falsifiability) is dependent on induction which his theory completely ignores so it is DOA.