= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
BrianScurfield comments on Bayesian Epistemology vs Popper - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (226)
Citation: Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, New York: Harper and Row. Reprinted London: Routledge, 1974.
It says theories should resist being overthrown for them to be proper theories. That implies that it is possible for a theory to be overthrown.
A theory can be fallibly overthrown, but not definitely overthrown, in Popper's view. Quotes out of context are easy to misread when you are not familiar with the ideas, and when you make assumptions (e.g. that overthrowing must be definitive) that the author does not make.
Ok, thanks for correcting me.
"A theory can be fallibly overthrown, but not definitely overthrown, in Popper's view. "
So maybe Jaynes was using "disprove" to mean "fallibly overthrow".
No page number isn't very nice. For anyone interested, it is on page 309, which is at the start of chapter 10 section 3.
If you read the context, you will find, for example, an explicit denouncement of the quest for certainty on the next page. Plus elaboration. Popper's position in these matters is not unclear.