Doesn't the frame and qualification problem discredit the latter? FWIW, most physics professionals I know, who aren't just popular personalities are not in the

Doesn't the frame and qualification problem discredit the latter? FWIW, most physics professionals I know, who aren't just popular personalities are not in the scientific realism camps. They realize that all models are wrong and that some are useful. I do think that the limits of induction and deduction are often ignored in the CS world, and as abduction is only practical in local cases is also ignored. But the quants have always been pseudoscientific. We are restricted to induction, deduction, and laplacian determination not because they are ideals, but because they make problems practical with computers. There are lots of problems that we can find solutions for, many more that we can approximate, but we are still producing models. More and more data is an attempt to get around the frame and qualification problems. Same problem that John McCarthy is trying to get around in this 1986 paper. http://jmc.stanford.edu/articles/circumscription/circumscription.pdf http://jmc.stanford.edu/articles/circumscription/circumscrip... Note that local bi-abduction is the STOA even for code. Without solving the frame and qualification problems, everything that isn't markovian and ergotic can be 'lied' with.