3 ms·
Reading part way through an article on Lakatos makes it seem that he is the saint of modern non-replicable "science" (I put that word in quotes cuz I'm not sure
by readthenotes1 2y ago
Reading part way through an article on Lakatos makes it seem that he is the saint of modern non-replicable "science" (I put that word in quotes cuz I'm not sure what it means anymore)
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lakatos/#LakaBigIdea https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lakatos/#LakaBigIdea
- mdp2021 2y agoI would not put it that way - of course we want «replicable» Science, as we (and in particular Lakatos) want it to provide predictions, and we value Science primarily for that capacity. Nonetheless, disappointing experiments must be treated reasonably (still Lakatos). We do not throw away theories - complex beasts that are best considered as "programmes" also to underline that they involve components - because an outcome was problematic: we investigate till we frame the problem in a sub-theory of "what could have gone wrong". Going towards the case of OP's statements which I countered, to corroborate some theory you conceive experiments to see if it is fact-resistant (Popper - but also fact compliant, which remains the main basic thing), but then you would also refine it according to the complications given by facts. Maybe you need more sophisticated ways to assess your results. > I put that word in quotes cuz I'm not sure what [science] means anymore Well, since we are on Lakatos, let us rephrase him: Science would be something that allows predictions.
- mdp2021 2y agoNow look at that: I am academically qualified, I have _degrees_ on these topics, and I get sniped; an interlocutor takes the time to find and check and propose some material, finds enough life within to inquire, and gets sniped. Moderators, we need to tackle all of this absurd incivility.