[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: List User-related request
On 10/30/06, John Conway <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Roberto Takata wrote:
> Popper verisimilitude approach was heavily criticized and his formal
> definition for "truth content" was proved wrong by Miller and Tichý,
> both in 1974.
Of course, practically everything Popper did was heavily criticized, and
falsificaionism as he saw it has largely foundered. However, but my
point was not so much that Popper was right, just that the situation
regarding truth in science is not clear cut. Sometimes I think chucking
it out as the domain of religion is just a trick to avoid endless
circular debate with those who must not be mentioned on this list.
There is some misunderstanding here. I'm not writing about
falsificationism, but about verisimilitude concept in Popper
phylosophy of science. It was with the "truth content" concept that he
try to save the idea of scientific endeavour progressionism - a
hypothesis A, even if was falsified, could be demonstrated to have
more "truth content" than a hypothesis B, and so we could talk about
be more closer to the very truth even if we could not prove that any
hypothesis is true.
Falsificationism without verisimilitude could not allow us to think
that we progressively (and asymptotically) approach to THE truth as we
refine our scientific work.