On 0, geni geniice@gmail.com scribbled:
On 7/7/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@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