But is that an example of scientific induction though? It doesn’t abstract to an underlying causal system. It’s merely a predictor based on past data.
It does seem inescapable that one somehow weighs evidence for and against a hypothesis (although, if I understand correctly, Popper strongly resisted this). Probability theory (Bayes or otherwise) is the obvious method, and was broadly adopted. It has its own problems, though.
-
-
Popper’s “resistance” to the idea that science is based on induction strikes me as commonly misinterpreted (maybe even by Popper). Rather, he basically defined inductive inference as a special case of deductive inference.
-
This does not at all fit my understanding of Popper on induction.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Evidence refutes already formed theories or not. Take eg evidence of universe's accelerating expansion, dark energy: how is that weighed? Weight describes irrational ppls emotions abt evidence: a creationist shown "enough" fossils. A scientist only needs to see 1 to be interested
-
I wonder if Deborah Mayo's well-probedness measure could save this. Also, correction, dark energy is the name of a problem not a theory.
End of conversation
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.