🚀 go-pugleaf

Eric Mankin <mankin@mizar.usc.edu> says:
>It's not that Kuhn rejects the importance of falsifiability. He only
>points out that the term has, in science, a sociological meaning often
>overlooked by those who see science as an inexorable-march-of-truth
>process not really involving human beings and their human investments
>in theories.

Ah.  Thats fine then.  I don't see science as an inexorable march of
truth process.  Science is performed by scientists.  And scientists are
people. They have their own pet theories which they are reluctant to
let go of.  They are capable of being influenced by the expectations of
their cultures.  They can reject well grounded theories simply because
they don't meet with their preconceptions (Einstein is a famous
example, rejecting some of the implications of his own theories).

This doesn't change the fact that theories must be testable in order to
be scientific.  And that best bassis of testing we know of is
falsifiability.

I think some of you may be giving me a position that I am not taking.
Somebody asked if I thought all science made predictions.  I answered
yes...more or less from the basis of a definition of science.  That
doesn't mean that I think that science is a perfect march toward
truth.  Or that I think or don't think that any particular field is a
science.
-- 
Frank Peters  -  UNIX Systems Group Leader  -  Mississippi State University
Internet: fwp@CC.MsState.Edu  -  Phone: 601-325-7030  -  FAX: 601-325-8921
             WWW Home Page:  http://www.msstate.edu/~fwp