Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!sri-unix!hplabs!ucbvax!cartan!brahms!gsmith From: gsmith@brahms (Gene Ward Smith) Newsgroups: sci.physics,talk.philosophy.misc Subject: Science is not the Philosophy of Science Message-ID: <351@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> Date: Tue, 18-Nov-86 12:20:48 EST Article-I.D.: cartan.351 Posted: Tue Nov 18 12:20:48 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 18-Nov-86 21:35:05 EST References: <240@sri-arpa.ARPA> <201@mind.UUCP> <3942@jhunix.UUCP> Sender: daemon@cartan.Berkeley.EDU Reply-To: gsmith@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Gene Ward Smith) Followup-To: talk.philosophy.misc Organization: Math Dept. UC Berkeley Lines: 24 Xref: mnetor sci.physics:195 talk.philosophy.misc:289 Summary: Expires: Sender: Distribution: Keywords: In article <3942@jhunix.UUCP> ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Ken Arromdee) writes: >>> All scientific beliefs are in principle falsifiable by experiment. >>For example, I suppose, the scientific belief that all scientific >>beliefs are in principle falsifiable by experiment... >Actually this does make sense. This doesn't lead to a contradiction unless >one such experiment produces the paradoxical result. As long as such an >experiment doesn't produce such a result, there's nothing to worry about. >Being falsifiable in principle isn't going to produce contradictions unless >real falsification occurs. Actually, this doesn't make sense. The proposition "all scientific beliefs should in principle be falsifiable by experiment" is not itself a scientific belief, but a philosophical belief. One does not determine whether this belief is correct by doing an experiment, because there is no such experiment to be performed. Instead, one engages in philosophical argumentation. What we can see from this is that the philosophy of science is not a branch of science, but of philosophy; which really should come as no surprise. ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 ucbvax!weyl!gsmith The Josh McDowell of the Net