On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 1:51:32 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> 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
>
He was a famous philosopher of the 20th century.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feyerabend/
I'm sure you too with your Ph.D. and publications are revered for your
knowledge in your field.
@philipthrift
--
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/f3966f70-3475-435e-9bef-ab53d01e50aco%40googlegroups.com.
