🚀 go-pugleaf

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". : 

: 
:      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".
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].
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?
: