Skip navigation

Tag Archives: philosophy of science

One thing that usually goes without saying in the Philosophy of Science is that Theories are accumulations of hypotheses.

Methodology preaches that you begin with a hypothesis, that you try to break it as much as you can, and that as time goes and you break a lot of hypotheses, you end up with a bunch of battle-tested hypotheses, which form a theory. No one explains how a bunch of hypotheses go on to form a theory, but (i just realised) that is actually the point: They don’t. Theory is just the set of battle-tested hypotheses.

But this is a radically new way to see Theory.

Read More »

There was a big fight over Quantum Physics, in which Einstein defended Realism and Bohr defended Instrumentalism. That is a massive simplification, it seems, but it is an accepted-enough® simplification, so much so that this pseudo-quote is assigned to Bohr by PBS Space Time:

“It is meaningless to assign reality to the universe in the absence of observation”

That is a dumb simplification, but the dumbness might not be so clear. So. Read More »

There is a certain prejudice — wait let me rephrase that: I’ve met with a certain prejudice against writing in the first person. As in “You can’t call rigorous an academic field which allows works in the first person” (source withhold to avoid embarrassments). But, to be blunt, this is complete bullshit from people who do not know enough about writing. Read More »

Because the pesky word is on the blog’s title, i keep talking about it. In fact, the very first post cited Popper’s argument that truth might not exist as fact but nevertheless it was an important motivator for science. That, in other words, though people never experience truth or never ever get to know anything that is really, really true, truth is a goal that is important.

Now i did accept the argument. For a long time. But it is just mistaken. It is simply not how things turn out to be. If you want, it is simply not true. Read More »