5 ms·
It's really a non-scientific idea, in the Popplerian sense. How would you debunk it? How would you confirm it? It's not in that class of idea. A lot of people
by jerf 2y ago
It's really a non-scientific idea, in the Popplerian sense. How would you debunk it? How would you confirm it? It's not in that class of idea.
A lot of people have been taught to read that as "therefore it's false" or "therefore it's true" or "therefore it's unimportant", but really all it means is that it is not amenable to scientific confirmation or debunking. That, and nothing more. Many things are not amenable to scientific confirmation or debunking that are true and false and important and unimportant and everything else.
- swayvil 2y agoIt is false and unimportant, thus it deserves no attention, thus we withdraw our attention from it, thus it fades and disappears. Thus reality is carved away, leaving only the important part. Which we call "reality" of course.
- jerf 2y agoOh, you've debunked it? That's pretty cool. I look forward to your published interviews with people from the time. You have an opinion that the hypothesis is false. I share that opinion. We probably have fairly radically different reasons for our opinions, though. Either way, they are just opinions, however well informed. We don't have proof.
- swayvil 2y agoThat isn't a debunking, it's a description of the mechanism. For good and ill. Read it again.
- kelseyfrog 2y agoWalk me through how you concluded it is false, please
- swayvil 2y agoBy "it" I refer to reality. Not the model. (Gotta underline everything for you people, I swear.)
- kelseyfrog 2y agoGo on..