I’m not any sort of expert here, but my understanding is not quite this. Maybe you are thinking of the “good reasons for bad records” paper? The generalization of this is not that the official version is wrong but that it’s often different, & looking @ differences is illuminating
Clearly it’s partly true that science proceeds by replacing old theories with better ones. But this is obvious and unhelpful.
-
-
Unless there’s specific investigation of what “better” means in different cases, how to choose a criterion of betterness from among the many available, how to come up with better theories, how to design an experiment that will test a theory, >
-
and all the other practicalities of actually doing science, I don’t see that critical rationalism has anything to offer. There appears to be no there, there. I would love to be proven wrong!
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.