On 0, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> scribbled:
On 7/7/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
wrote:
The oblate spheroid shape of the earth was not
likely observable in
Aristotle's time. Such a deviation from Aristotle's conclusion that the
Earth was a sphere is trivial.
No because the Aristotelian model assumed perfect geometric shapes
(see the shape of the orbitals). The perfect sphere thing also runs
into problems if you manage to spot Baily's beads during an eclipse.
Such a deviation was not trivial at all then because it would involve
tearing apart a key part of the model.
It's premature to suggest that failing to
mention Popper was indecent.
Ec
Popper provides us with a complete philosophy. Einstein less so
It also slows down the rate with which we can bring up Imre Lakatos
and then Paul Feyerabend and start punching holes on the claim.
--
geni
Oooh, and then can we begin discussing how Hempel's Raven paradox eluicidates
precisely why confirmatory instances do so much less than disconfirmatory instances, and
from there move on to a discussion of Bayesian vs. frequentists interpretations of
observation and theory? (Possibly bringing a bit of computer science's denotational
semantics by way of digital philosophy?)
--
gwern
IM IN UR UTILITY FUNCTION, DECREASING UR CONFIDENCE INTERVALS