Theories of scientific progress based on replacement of explanations by better ones have to grapple with the unspecifiability of what makes one “better.” Peter Godfrey-Smith, Theory and Reality, p. 93pic.twitter.com/YnpZtoEKqw
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
I don’t find satisfying accounts of scientific progress that attribute all the hard parts to “creativity” or “intuition,” which verge on woo and explain nothing. Detailed case studies often reveal what was actually going on.
Perhaps he’ll weigh in here, but think Deutsch would fully agree that “creativity” as he’s using it really needs more detailed specification. But progress for him is explained as much by the selective process on the theories (criticism/refutation) as by creativity (conjecture).
I've read parts of DC and all of DD and they're in agreement almost everywhere that matters afaik. Difference: DC has a hierarchical aspect: Meta about science, Science about world, while DD does away with levels: Meta and science (and all other theories) are about reality
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.