🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <30vca1$8g9@Jester.CC.MsState.Edu>
fwp@CC.MsState.Edu (Frank Peters) writes:
 
>
>Marc A. Belanger <3914MABE@vm1.ulaval.ca> says:
>> Frank Peters <fwp@CC.MsState.Edu> wrote:
>>[after which follows a discussion on falsifiability and :
>> >The only way that I can think of to do this is to make predictions of
>> >the nature of unobserved phenomena based upon the theory. USW]
>>
>>Have you read Kuhn? In his famous book he agrues that falsifiability
>>does not work as much as we think it does.
>
>No.  Does he suggest any replacement for falsifiability?  Or does he
>recommend that we just accept any theory that sounds reasonable without
>testing?
>
I does not really argue about replacing or not falsifiability but says that
it is not the way things go. And this is why I do not consider the state-
ment on falsifiability a "definition" but rather a theory of what should
be going on.
>
>>          Moreover, can anyone tell me of any prediction made by maths
>>(or math) or by sciences having to cope with complex systems or non-
>>linear equations?
>
>I'm not a mathematician so I can't answer this one.  But in general
>I believe that the most common method of proof in mathematics is to
>assume a given theory is false and then detect an inconsistency.  This
>is certainly unusual, but then math deals with non-physical entities
>for the most part and so is an unusual field.  I'd have to think about
>whether I would call it a science.
>
If mathematics is not a science then half of physics (which is maths) is
not either. But it still remains that predictions does not work in maths.
 
>>In linguistics, I think that some predictions can be made.
>
>Fine.  I never claimed that linguistics is unscientific (that was Mark
>Israel I think).  I just gave the most accepted (I believe) definition
>of what "scientific" is.
>--
Sorry to have thought this.
But I would like to add that science is not (all) predictions. If I get
into a car, put the key in and turn it, the motor, if all goes well, will
start. This is a prediction. It is not scientific (unless you place common
sense into science). What would be scientific would be to posit some
explanation. "Il n'y a de science que du cache'," said someone, science is
a search for something underlying experience, gor what is hidden. From then,
sure, one can make predictions, but it is not the all-in-all of science.
 
                                               -Marc