philosophy of science dead? realism vs. empiricism (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, September 12, 2016, 12:21 (2783 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I think of myself as using experimental results to reach my conclusions, metaphysical as they might be.
dhw: Please tell us what experiments can test whether an eternal conscious mind created billions of solar systems in order to produce life on Earth, preprogrammed or dabbled the weaverbird's nest, and is hiding behind a quantum wall. 
DAVID: I've said I've reached a metaphysical endpoint from evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. -Yes you have, but you also said above that you used experimental results, which apparently is what you would have to do to call yourself an empiricist. In my ignorance, I remain totally unaware of any experiments that provide evidence for the three conclusions I have listed above.
 
dhw: As for the bold about the Higgs, it merely confirms what we have now agreed: Higgs completes one segment of a pattern, but we don't know the overall pattern.DAVID: I'm glad you finally recognize it.
dhw: We have finally agreed that the Higgs completes a segment of a pattern, and having bolded the quotes supporting the viewpoint that the SM (accepted pattern) may be defective, you have clearly recognized that the SM (accepted pattern) may be defective! -DAVID: Again you misinterpret. The SM does contain currently some questionable problems, but my point is that each time we create an experiment in atom busting we have always found an answer that fits the overall pattern and solves the discrepancy, the Higgs as the latest of those steps. If we ever find a total misfit then your point will be correct. But until now each discovery fits the human conception of how it is all put together in this limited understanding of the overall picture, awaiting discovery, if possible.-And it is the limited understanding of the overall picture, awaiting discovery, if possible, that enables us to say - as all the commentators have said - that the SM may be defective or, even stronger in two of the quotes you yourself gave to us: 
"Physicists know that the standard model must break down somewhere.” 
"Even the crowning achievement of the LHC, the discovery of the Higgs boson in 2012 hints at the sickness within the standard model." (David's bold)-But this is getting us nowhere. Your point was that the current pattern strongly suggests a mind, and my point was that no matter what pattern physicists come up with, you will still think it suggests a mind - even if the pattern proves to be as changeable as the weather.