Inference and its role in NS (General)

by dhw, Monday, January 17, 2011, 11:09 (5060 days ago) @ xeno6696

Matt has kindly set out the rules by which the philosophy of science decides which theories are "the best", although passionate scientists (and all scientists should be passionate) may defend their own "pet theories", in which case presumably they don't know or don't accept the rules.-Similarly the philosophy of science lays out a clear framework that distinguishes between hypothesis, theory and law, but again unfortunately a lot of scientists don't know this framework and "muddy the water". -A system of fixed scientific criteria and definitions either not known or not recognized by some passionate scientists (and all scientists should be passionate) doesn't sound too convincing to me. Nor does "the best theory" carry much weight unless we're thinking in terms of scientific Oscars. What exactly are we supposed to do with a best theory that might be wrong? Perhaps instead of using the big bang versus the expanding/contracting universe as your example, you might consider climate change.-As for distinguishing between hypothesis and theory (I'd put "law" in a different category), I would not and did not define theory as an "arbitrary and untested explanation". But let's leave it at that.-I had paraphrased your definition of a scientific theory as one that has been repeatedly verified but will most likely turn out to be untrue, and you have objected to the "untrue" bit. I'd based that on your statements concerning the naïve public's inability to handle the TRANSITORY nature of scientific explanations, and the fact that science is not about finding FINAL answers. My apologies for the misinterpretation. I'm delighted that you appear to accept the rest of my post, to the effect that science and scientists cannot be separated, scientific blunders are not to be excused or ignored under the banner of "transitoriness", that the "naïve" public should not be blamed for taking the word of experts whose theories have been "repeatedly verified", and that the transitoriness of scientific theory is a weakness as well as a strength. I assume you accept these arguments because you have quoted them and responded (just a little cryptically) that Nietzsche laughs at scientists and at Kant, and we all need to be passionate about what we do.