🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct27.093736.1820@nuscc.nus.sg> matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Woody Allen in Manhattan where the hell else would I be) writes:
>crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>:      The theory that posits existence of W bosons is certainly falsifiable, 
>:      and Popper certainly includes positive corroboration as a part of
>:      the process of science.  I think correctly, though, he is very
>:      careful to state that this does not imply that the
>:      theory is 'true' or even 'probable'. 
>
>So why did Carlo get the Nobel? He didn't falsify anything, and,
>according to Popper, he did not show that anything is true or even
>"probable". : 

     First, getting the Nobel is in itself not an indication of much 
     of anything.

     Second, you seemed to have missed the phrase 'includes positive 
     corroboration as a part of the process of science.'  He is just
     careful not to overrate the ultimate importance of such positive 
     corroboration.  It seems in your distaste you are misrepresenting 
     the content of Popper's philosophy.

>: 
>:      If this is your job, then I'd enjoy seeing a definition of 
>:      'truth' and your algorithm for establishing it.  
>: 
>:      Actually, a watertight definition of 'truth' will do.
>:      I'd like to see how you get around this without sounding like
>:      a flaming positivist or establishing a new religion.
>
>I will give you a definition of truth if you can give me a conclusive
>discussion of free will vs determinism. Or if you can define the word
>"exists".

     I didn't say that my job had anything to do with free will or
     determinism or even existence.  You, however, said your job
     was to find out what was 'true'.  Presumably you know what
     constitutes 'truth' if it is your job to find it?

>My main point is this: Popper may or may not be entitled to prescribe
>what physicists ought to do. That is moot. What I can say with certainty
>is that physicists do not in fact behave in anything like the way that
>Popper thinks they do or should. If you look at the way that physicists
>actually behave, you will find that they will claim that Rubbia got the
>Nobel because he showed that the GSW theory [NOT the latter-day GSW] was
>right. If pressed, they will no doubt say "probably right": what they
>mean is that they do not actively doubt its truth. [Of course if you
>start talking about higher energies they will say something else, but
>the point is that to most people there is nothing wrong in saying that a
>theory is true or probably true].

     Popper's point was that this is exceedingly misleading, as it is.
     If you have no basis to make a probabilistic argument, then
     you should not make one.  It is interesting that you have 
     explicitly stated a Popperean position in that when physicists
     say 'probably right' they mean that they 'do not actively 
     doubt its truth'.
     
     And 'common usage' doesn't seem to be a strong defense of misleading
     and improper practices.  

>By the way: would Popper say that Abian's theory is an excellent one on
>the grounds that it is so obviously wrong? Would you permit me to say
>that what Abian says is not....true?
>: 

     Of course, you once again seem to be misrepresenting Popper's
     work.   Theories are good if they are falsifiable, not if they
     are false.  The 'ifiable' makes all the difference.

                            dale bass


                                  


-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926