Re: Time to plan the 2nd Annual Titor Was BS Party
Hi Einstein,
You make me feel like I inadvertantly got transported into a parallel universe. Or maybe you are just deliberately trying to make a false prediction. There must be some motive behind your statement. Care to explain?
I think Darby did a fine job of explaining what I was getting at. (OMG! I ended that sentence with a preposition!)
The only things I would add to Darby's explanation of the concept of "Popper Falsifiability" are reference materials for further study. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Karl Popper is the namesake for this important concept for how "proper" scientific theoris should be formed and stated.
Straight from the horse's mouth.
One of the (several) ironies of the Titor story is the fact that Titor uses the work of Frank Tipler in weaving his story of how time travel "works" in the world(line) created by Group Titor. The irony is that Tipler himself is a staunch advocate of falsifiability as an essential feature of any scientific theory. So I would hazard to guess that Frank Tipler would be at odds with the whole Titor story, since it is clearly not Popper falsifiable.
And we can also read about
differing opinions on how falsifiability applies (or does not apply) to science. In my opinion, I do not think this author makes a terribly strong argument against falsifiability as a useful tool in defining "good science". For example:
Science is not a robotic process of conjecture and refutation. It involves the ability to call into question inherited assumptions that are elements of our background framework, thereby opening up possibilities that could not have been foreseen at the start. What we do in laboratories is both inquiry into nature and self-inquiry. Those efforts put our guesses about nature to the test and force us to reinterpret the assumptions on which these guesses are made.
This point seems weak to me, because having the ability to test (and prove wrong) prior assumptions that lead to prior theories is EXACTLY what Popper Falsifiability is all about. The example the author gives about Miller and his reproduction (with different results) of Michaelson's and Morely's experiments does not mean Einstein's assumption has not been falsified. It simply means a certain body does not accept this result as falsification of Einstein's stated assumption. The important thing is that Einstein's body of work in Relativity
is falsifiable. Miller's work may indeed someday be found to be a falsification of Einstein's assumption of constant speed of light. Then again, in the future, some OTHER falsification may come along which is even more convincing that Miller's example.
Anyway, enough this is babble...
RMT