Article View: sci.philosophy.tech
Article #653Re: Induction v. Karl Popper
From: Jeff Dalton
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 14:36
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 14:36
12 lines
1036 bytes
1036 bytes
In article <27526@castle.ed.ac.uk> cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes: >In article <1992Oct29.133849.10933@oracorp.com> daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough) writes: > >>Popper's suggestion is that we not judge a theory based on its origin, >>but instead judge a theory by its ability to make accurate predictions. > >Not quite, but by its failure to make inaccurate predictions. >According to Popper a theory accumulates _no_ extra virtue by making >more verified predictions. The value of the confirming experiment is a >human weakness in scientists, and not logical -- according to Popper. Take that Turing Testers!
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<7883@skye.ed.ac.uk>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeffReferences:
<1992Oct29.133849.10933@oracorp.com> <27526@castle.ed.ac.uk>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech Subject: Re: Induction v. Karl Popper Message-ID: <7883@skye.ed.ac.uk> Date: 10 Nov 92 14:36:43 GMT References: <1992Oct29.133849.10933@oracorp.com> <27526@castle.ed.ac.uk> Sender: news@aiai.ed.ac.uk Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland Lines: 12