Jump to content

Talk:Quasi-empirical method

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jon Awbrey (talk | contribs) at 17:10, 8 April 2006 (moved Talk:Quasi-empirical methods to Talk:Quasi-empirical method: standard singular title). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Problems with this text:

Hard scientists are also concerned with the reliability of these methods to some degree, but only in fields (e.g. string theory) where direct experimental invalidation (i.e. finding counter-examples) is difficult or impossible. In such circumstances a scientist falls back on the same quasi-empirical methods as mathematicians.

At best there needs to be another example. It's not difficult or impossible to experimentally falsible string theory. String theory makes (or at least should make) some easily testable predictions about the universe.

Not necessary to produce all counterexamples

Added a bullet to note that the requirement to find all counterexamples to kill a theory is unnecessary. One counterexample suffices. Thus the argument in scientific method that science is really quasi-empirical is suspect.169.207.90.10 07:46, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)