|Date:||Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:52:53 +0700|
Thanks for the neat explanation
I think I may have given the wrong impression - I am sure there is a value
I also agree that QM (quantum mysticism) is often dangerously
purported as 'science', when it is not
However a lot of science is also dangerously sold as 'science', when it is not
Science today should know better.....
Popper's principle is beloved by crusaders against junk- and pseudo-science, for it simplifies demarcation. But, however attractive Popper's falsifiability principle might sound, it is not good philosophy of science.
In summary, then, falsificationism in its various forms is an interesting idea but insufficient either to characterise science or solve the demarcation problem. It suffers from a series of logical and philosophical difficulties that should perhaps give us pause if hoping to find a single answer to what makes good science and what does not.
lots of others, including yours humble
On Dec 10, 2007 6:02 PM, John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx > wrote:
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
_________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (01)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] brainwaves (WAS: to concept or not to concept, is this a question?), aarsic|
|Previous by Thread:|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] brainwaves (WAS: to concept or not to concept, is this a question?), Ingvar Johansson|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|