Ah, but this is Karl Popper's model of scientific truth, which has been displaced in the philosophy of science by the works of Thomas Kuhn and subsequent refinements. The trouble with Popper's model is basically this:
Poppers model says theory plus experimental setup implies prediction. Therefore, if you can prove the prediction wrong, you have disproved or "falsified" the theory.
That sounds good, but he's left out a step. It's more like theory plus experimantal setup plus auxilliary assumptions implies prediction. Since you can never prove the auxilliary assumptions, you never know for sure if you have falsified the theory or the assumptions. Auxilliary assumptions are such things as assuming that there is not an invisible planet somewhere near Mercury, offsetting its orbit in exactly such a way as to mimic the effect of General Relativity. While this is not likely, you cannot absolutely prove that it is not the case, or that any one of a million other assumptions are not the case.
What this means is that you can never completely prove a theory either true or false, and you must fall back on essentially esthetic criteria in the selection of theories. Another way of putting this is that, for any phenomenon, there are an infinite number of possible theories that can adequately and accurately explain the phenomenon. The task of the scientist is then to choose those theories which are elegant, which work well for the context at hand, and which explain the broadest possible range of phenomena.
Keep in mind that the two great theories of modern physics, General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory, are mutually exclusive and have yet to be reconciled, yet both work amazingly well within their context. Which is "false"? Nobody knows. Sometimes it's hard to even define what false means (unless you're speaking in binary!)
If you add to this the complications posed by the theorems of Bell and Godel... well, you've basically got a mess, from the classical Popperian standpoint. Personally, I think it's cool.
"All proofs eventually lead to propositions which have no proof. We believe things because we want to believe them." -- Frank Herbert
The trouble with this type of legislation is that it ends up amounting to the legislation of certain "facts." Those who publicly disagree with these "facts" are accused of hate speech and punished. Once the door is opened for this, history becomes a matter of legal decree. It doesn't matter what the set of legislated "facts" are, the effect is the same.
This reminds me of the fabled attempt to legally declare that pi is equal to 3. You simply can't legislate the truth. Who gets to determine what the truth is? Who decides whether someone's opinions are "hate speech"?
Why, the government, of course! This means the power to define a particular historical record and interpretation that is inviolable and illegal to dispute. Among other things, emasculates the entire discipline of history.
"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire
So does this mean that lying is illegal in Canida? Jeeze, that means we'll have to lock up all the politicians, then!
It seems that you are saying that the illegal part is the lie... but who determines the truth?
"Funny thing about politicians, though, you can allways tell when they're lying; their lips move." -- Max Headroom
"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." --Voltaire
Slashdot Mirror
Well, no, of course he doesn't think that. Just who do you think the target of this legislation is, anyway?
Poppers model says theory plus experimental setup implies prediction. Therefore, if you can prove the prediction wrong, you have disproved or "falsified" the theory.
That sounds good, but he's left out a step. It's more like theory plus experimantal setup plus auxilliary assumptions implies prediction. Since you can never prove the auxilliary assumptions, you never know for sure if you have falsified the theory or the assumptions. Auxilliary assumptions are such things as assuming that there is not an invisible planet somewhere near Mercury, offsetting its orbit in exactly such a way as to mimic the effect of General Relativity. While this is not likely, you cannot absolutely prove that it is not the case, or that any one of a million other assumptions are not the case.
What this means is that you can never completely prove a theory either true or false, and you must fall back on essentially esthetic criteria in the selection of theories. Another way of putting this is that, for any phenomenon, there are an infinite number of possible theories that can adequately and accurately explain the phenomenon. The task of the scientist is then to choose those theories which are elegant, which work well for the context at hand, and which explain the broadest possible range of phenomena.
Keep in mind that the two great theories of modern physics, General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory, are mutually exclusive and have yet to be reconciled, yet both work amazingly well within their context. Which is "false"? Nobody knows. Sometimes it's hard to even define what false means (unless you're speaking in binary!)
If you add to this the complications posed by the theorems of Bell and Godel... well, you've basically got a mess, from the classical Popperian standpoint. Personally, I think it's cool.
"All proofs eventually lead to propositions which have no proof. We believe things because we want to believe them." -- Frank Herbert
This reminds me of the fabled attempt to legally declare that pi is equal to 3. You simply can't legislate the truth. Who gets to determine what the truth is? Who decides whether someone's opinions are "hate speech"?
Why, the government, of course! This means the power to define a particular historical record and interpretation that is inviolable and illegal to dispute. Among other things, emasculates the entire discipline of history.
"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire
So does this mean that lying is illegal in Canida? Jeeze, that means we'll have to lock up all the politicians, then! It seems that you are saying that the illegal part is the lie... but who determines the truth? "Funny thing about politicians, though, you can allways tell when they're lying; their lips move." -- Max Headroom "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." --Voltaire