Comments on: Snap, Crackle, Popper — It's http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2002/01/13/snap-crackle-popper-its/ The Sweet Release of Reason Sun, 20 May 2012 23:34:36 +0000 hourly 1 By: Michael Orme http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2002/01/13/snap-crackle-popper-its/#comment-41 Michael Orme Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:34:48 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=90#comment-41 I don't get it: 'But why should this preference be rational unless it is in fact the case that theories that have survived a lot of experimental tests are more likely to be true than theories that haven’t.?' Since this is entirely Popper's position, are you quoting against him or in favour? Corroboration here just means 'has passed (more) tests'. The admittedly tricky fine distinction between 'corroboration' and 'probability' is based on the uncomfortable awareness that, logically, the probability of any given general law = 0. The problem of evidence is another question entirely...! But anything at all can be used to test any theory. Example: Chinese vs western medicine acounts of 'intra-body communication'. (ie, Nerves vs energy pathways) I don’t get it:
‘But why should this preference be rational unless it is in fact the case that theories that have survived a lot of experimental tests are more likely to be true than theories that haven’t.?’

Since this is entirely Popper’s position, are you quoting against him or in favour? Corroboration here just means ‘has passed (more) tests’.

The admittedly tricky fine distinction between ‘corroboration’ and ‘probability’ is based on the uncomfortable awareness that, logically, the probability of any given general law = 0.

The problem of evidence is another question entirely…! But anything at all can be used to test any theory. Example: Chinese vs western medicine acounts of ‘intra-body communication’. (ie, Nerves vs energy pathways)

]]> By: Michael Orme http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2002/01/13/snap-crackle-popper-its/#comment-42 Michael Orme Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:34:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=90#comment-42 I don't get it: 'But why should this preference be rational unless it is in fact the case that theories that have survived a lot of experimental tests are more likely to be true than theories that haven’t.?' Since this is entirely Popper's position, are you quoting against him or in favour? Corroboration here just means 'has passed (more) tests'. The admittedly tricky fine distinction between 'corroboration' and 'probability' is based on the uncomfortable awareness that, logically, the probability of any given general law = 0. The problem of evidence is another question entirely...! But anything at all can be used to test any theory. Example: Chinese vs western medicine acounts of 'intra-body communication'. (ie, Nerves vs energy pathways) I don’t get it:
‘But why should this preference be rational unless it is in fact the case that theories that have survived a lot of experimental tests are more likely to be true than theories that haven’t.?’

Since this is entirely Popper’s position, are you quoting against him or in favour? Corroboration here just means ‘has passed (more) tests’.

The admittedly tricky fine distinction between ‘corroboration’ and ‘probability’ is based on the uncomfortable awareness that, logically, the probability of any given general law = 0.

The problem of evidence is another question entirely…! But anything at all can be used to test any theory. Example: Chinese vs western medicine acounts of ‘intra-body communication’. (ie, Nerves vs energy pathways)

]]> By: Michael Orme http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2002/01/13/snap-crackle-popper-its/#comment-43 Michael Orme Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:34:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=90#comment-43 I don't get it: 'But why should this preference be rational unless it is in fact the case that theories that have survived a lot of experimental tests are more likely to be true than theories that haven’t.?' Since this is entirely Popper's position, are you quoting against him or in favour? Corroboration here just means 'has passed (more) tests'. The admittedly tricky fine distinction between 'corroboration' and 'probability' is based on the uncomfortable awareness that, logically, the probability of any given general law = 0. The problem of evidence is another question entirely...! But anything at all can be used to test any theory. Example: Chinese vs western medicine acounts of 'intra-body communication'. (ie, Nerves vs energy pathways) I don’t get it:
‘But why should this preference be rational unless it is in fact the case that theories that have survived a lot of experimental tests are more likely to be true than theories that haven’t.?’

Since this is entirely Popper’s position, are you quoting against him or in favour? Corroboration here just means ‘has passed (more) tests’.

The admittedly tricky fine distinction between ‘corroboration’ and ‘probability’ is based on the uncomfortable awareness that, logically, the probability of any given general law = 0.

The problem of evidence is another question entirely…! But anything at all can be used to test any theory. Example: Chinese vs western medicine acounts of ‘intra-body communication’. (ie, Nerves vs energy pathways)

]]>