Nobody understands quantum physics?

[physika]

but there's no hint at the claimed dichotomy between a classical and a quantum world.

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[haushofer]

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

In a Bayesian sense that depends on your expectations :P

 

[hutchphd]

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If this is strictly correct then there is no inductive scientific method. A scientific hypothesis is accepted because of ongoing absence of any evidence it is not true. This assumes the hypothesis is not a "Pauli"= not even wrong

 

[Fra]

If this is strictly correct then there is no inductive scientific method.

This is Poppers view. Which is why his focus is on corroboration only. I do not like Popper at all. He sweeps the interesting part under the rug just because it is not deductive. But life does not progress in a deductive manner neither i think is learning or natural science. I think Popper just refused to acccept or get to peace with this.

/Fredrik

 

[hutchphd]

What does "corroboration only" mean? I know very little formal philosophy although Karl Popper makes perfect sense to me.

 

[.Scott]

If this ["absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"] is strictly correct then there is no inductive scientific method. A scientific hypothesis is accepted because of ongoing absence of any evidence it is not true. This assumes the hypothesis is not a "Pauli"= not even wrong

A scientific hypothesis may be "accepted" for as long as it is not contradicted and competes well in the "Occam's Razor" test. But Newtonian physics is "accepted" as a practical engineering tool for most human endeavors - even though it has been contradicted.

In hard science, there is no firm universal notion of "accepted". All hypothesis are subject to continuous reevaluation. There are pragmatic social reasons to declare something "text book ready", but the processes of science development provide no natural resting spots.

 

[gentzen]

This is Poppers view. Which is why his focus is on corroboration only. I do not like Popper at all. He sweeps the interesting part under the rug just because it is not deductive. But life does not progress in a deductive manner neither i think is learning or natural science. I think Popper just refused to acccept or get to peace with this.

How much do you know of Popper's own view and motivations? Are you sure that you won't end up with a similar realization as me

For me, it was the opposite. This interview has significantly increased my respect for Deutsch, and also for Popper. It slightly decreased my respect for my own background in philosophy, with respect to what I have read, what I haven’t read, and what I didn’t even plan to read.

when you will come across explainations of Popper's actual motivations? Or will you be so blinded by his objections to Bayesianism that you won't be able to see the genius of his solution of how to overcome the circularity of induction?

Popper realised that the problem of induction actually implies that there's no such thing as justified knowledge in the first place, and that we do not need knowledge to be justified in order to use it.

There is no process of justifying a theory. So theories, according to Popper, are always conjecture, and thinking about theories is always criticism. It's never a justificatory process. It's always a critical process.

 

[hutchphd]

Is there some alternative form for science ?

 

[DrClaude]

This thread is now drifting in many directions. Time to close.

Thanks to all that have participated.