/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2992177
False bifurcations are fun, aren't they. People will begin to take you seriously when you notice minor issues like:
>>2992176

Read some Wittgenstein, Carnap, and Searle. You can burn your Latour and Agamben.

>>2965052
Your reading comprehension seems to be flawed. There are two main points to the Duhem-Quine thesis:

1) Logically speaking, a negative experimental result doesn't merely repudiate the hypothesis you wish to test, but rather must be taken holistically. You are essentially making the tacit assumption that everything that has been done up to any given point in science is accepted when you do so. (see also: my points about choosing to discard new ideas over old ones)

2) Experimental interpretations are 'theory-laden' in the sense that you must, again, assume the validity of current theory a priori in order to make an interpretation of a given piece of experimental data. You are, essentially, seeing what you see in the language of the models you already accept.

These aren't fundamental problems in any sense, but they do eliminate some of the traditional naive notions about the justification of scientific progress and experimental data. If nothing else, the notion of verification is seriously in doubt.

>>2955057
What are all those confusing symbols in regular patterns?

>>2941033
If I criticize it so much it's because I know it's gone wrong, but I still love it, and I want to see it do good again.

>>2649110

mfw