@skypage
One still needs to believe methodology. That is, that it works, is effective, gives the desired result. And when one compares methodologies, one needs another methodology for it (supplying comparing criteria). So, ulimately there's something to believe there. Isn't it?
One still needs to believe methodology. That is, that it works, is effective, gives the desired result. And when one compares methodologies, one needs another methodology for it (supplying comparing criteria). So, ulimately there's something to believe there. Isn't it?
@skypage
But then what does count as verifiability of methods? What is the justification of it? I can think of appealing to common sense, but it doesn't work all the time, e. g. in quantum theory.
But then what does count as verifiability of methods? What is the justification of it? I can think of appealing to common sense, but it doesn't work all the time, e. g. in quantum theory.
@skypage
Well, I also mean that there are no "pure" experiments, since they are dependent on a given theory, no "pure" facts. The same event (or experiment if it is specifically designed) would be interpreted differently in Aristotle's, Newton's, or Einstein's physics. And there are also a lot of ways to introduce ad hoc principles to save a given theory from refutation. I guess you believe that science produce the Truth, but the history of science shows that it doesn't.
Well, I also mean that there are no "pure" experiments, since they are dependent on a given theory, no "pure" facts. The same event (or experiment if it is specifically designed) would be interpreted differently in Aristotle's, Newton's, or Einstein's physics. And there are also a lot of ways to introduce ad hoc principles to save a given theory from refutation. I guess you believe that science produce the Truth, but the history of science shows that it doesn't.
- replies
- 0
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 0