Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward
Actually, I follow C.P. Snow's falsifacation concept. Take all the fact you know on a particular item. Make a theory that covers all the facts. Then try to find facts that disprove the theory. When you do, make a new theory covering the old fact and the new facts. Repeat the cycle.
|
That's basically what Sontag said. Science is the process of disproving theories.
Quote:
|
You never find the absolute truth this way. You just narrow the range of answers the truth is in. But you don't allow yourself to fall in the logical trap of treating a false premise as a true premise that you can't/don't question...
|
Well, hopefully you don't. It depends upon how much emotional capital you have invested in your theory. It's easy to class the stuff that doesn't prove your case as "experimental error", and avoid questioning your theory.
Quote:
|
(Modern physics is probably in that kind of trap today. They have set certain things as constants, beyond question. If they are less than completely correct, then they're going down a blind alley, with no way out, because the guild doesn't allow the constants to be questioned....and then wonder why there hasn't been a new Einenstein in over a 100 years.)
|
People question the constants all the time, and there as assortment of "What If" games speculating what the results would be if certain constants had a different value. Fred Pohl calls them "Gosh numbers", as in "Because that constant has the value it does, life can exist in our universe. Gosh!"
But they are considered constants because no one has come up with other values that can be plugged into the equations in their place and yield meaningful results. Like other theories, they've survived repeated attempts to question them.
My concern is different. Science is
supposed to be the process of accumulating facts, and coming up with a theory to explain them. It can falter when you come up with a grand theory first, then look for facts to justify it.
______
Dennis