>I'm quite familiar with Popper's views on falsifiability. (My Ph.D.
>dissertation was entitled: "Objective Knowledge and the Knowing Subject:
>The Popper-Kuhn Debate.") I think the situation with theory-proposal and
>theory-choice is somewhat diØfferent from what Popper thought. The famous
>experiment, where light was shown to be bent when it passes a massive
>object (e.g. the sun), in some sense "proved" Einstein's theory just as
>much as it falsified Newton's.
Foo on that statement!
PhD in Philosophy or not, I cannot buy into that that one. The fact that
the outcome of an experiment is correctly predicted can hardly be considered
to be a "proof". If it were widely accepted as such by scientists in
general, then the scientific community would call the General Theory of
Relativity a "fact" or a "law", which they do not. You appear to have
constructed your own personal set of logic rules and definitions.
==========================================
Walt Hicks <whicks@ma.ultranet.com>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
(Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic
if you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
==========================================