Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site hounx.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!hounx!kort
From: kort@hounx.UUCP (B.KORT)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.sci
Subject: Re: Contempt prior to Investigation (Compeleteness of Theories)
Message-ID: <721@hounx.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 19-Mar-86 08:35:32 EST
Article-I.D.: hounx.721
Posted: Wed Mar 19 08:35:32 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 21-Mar-86 03:55:58 EST
References: <435@ccivax.UUCP> <13400007@uiucdcsp> <12239@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <695@hounx.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 52
Xref: watmath net.philosophy:4524 net.sci:614

Peter Ladkin (Hi Peter) writes,

>In article <695@hounx.UUCP>, kort@hounx.UUCP (B.KORT) writes:

>> Conventional theories are *not* complete.  (If they were, there would
>> be no need for scientific research and theoretical studies.)  [KORT]
 
>There are at least two possible meanings of *complete*. 
>One is, formally deriving all truths in the intended interpretation.
>Here, the language is adequately expressive, and the deductive
>power of the theory is being questioned.
>Another is, whether the theory adequately expresses the 
>intended interpretation.
>Which sense, (or maybe another) did you intend?
>
>Karl Popper and others have pointed out that attempts 
>should be made to falsify theories, and that a good theory
>is one which resists falsification. Even (or especially)
>with a *complete* theory (in either sense), attempts
>should be made to falsify predictions, on this view.
>This is a reason for continued research which is independent
>of the *complete*ness or otherwise of the theories.
>
>Peter Ladkin
>
I was actually thinking of both meanings.  I had in mind the Goedelian
notion of incompleteness as well as the awareness that physicists are
building an unending progression of ever more unified theories, from
Newtonian Mechanics to Special Relativity to General Relativity to
Unified Field Theories toward the current goal of a Grand Unified Theory.

It is interesting to note the see-saw leap frogging between the development
of new branches of mathematics, and their application to theoretical physics.
(Perhaps Matthew Wiener could help me illustrate this hand-in-hand evolution.
It is not an accident that Newton invented the Calculus.  It was a necessary
tool of thought for his elucidation of the laws of motion.)

I am troubled by Popper's suggestion for a paradigm of attempting to
falsify theories.  In my view every theory is an approximation to
the subtleties of nature.  The goal is to evolve the theories to ever
larger scope and to ever finer resolution of subtle detail.  I prefer
the method of Socrates to the method of Popper for stimulating the
evolution of knowledge.  (I prefer it, because it is both more effective
and more civilized.)  However, I accept the reality that others will
prefer the more aggressive approach.  It's a regrettable fact of life that
humans cannot easily escape their more primitive traits of human nature.

Barry Kort  ...ihnp4!hounx!kort


Excelsior:  1. Onward and Upward.  2. Little Bits of Shredded Paper Left
               Over from Definition 1.