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

by dhw, Tuesday, September 13, 2016, 11:53 (2780 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 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.-DAVID: Stop wiggling. The current herd of particles had enough understanding to predict the Higgs. You can't get around that fact. Yes some minor points don't fit, but every time in the past, misunderstood areas have been clarified by new discoveries. I fully expect that to be the case here. What we don't really know is outside the energies of the Higgs.-I have already agreed that this SEGMENT (your word) of the overall pattern has been proved. “Minor points” or “misunderstood areas” include approx. 95% (the figure seems to vary from commentator to commentator) of the universe's matter and energy, plus gravity. New discoveries may force us to abandon the standard model in favour of a new overall pattern. I don't have a clue about these things. I can only go by what the experts tell us, and you have magnanimously confirmed all of this with a series of quotes:-"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." -“Alternatively, they [WIMPS] may not exist, which would mean that something is woefully amiss in the underpinnings of how we try to make sense of the universe[/b].” -“Whatever dark matter is, it is not accounted for in the Standard Model of particle physics…” -Our starting point was your claim that the current pattern strongly suggested a planning mind. My response is at the top of this post. What are we arguing about?