On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 5:04:07 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > 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 >
Face it. His words are revealing. Your "philosopher" is a stupid prick. AG > > > > > > -- 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/fed27529-6445-4c31-9862-24ea9c487341o%40googlegroups.com.
