Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?
(09-06-2016, 02:33 PM)secur Wrote: You're right, no scientific theory can be verified (100%), as Popper emphasized. But he doesn't address "partial" or probabilistic verification of a theory. Perhaps it was a mistake to call it a "mistake" of Popper's. It's more a question of emphasis. Anyway I found this blog which addresses the issue pretty well: https://themultidisciplinarian.com/2016/...phy-again/. A couple of quotes:

"Scientists, for the most part, make lousy philosophers."

"He [Popper] ignores the problem of choosing between alternative non-falsified theories and the matter of theory-ladenness of negative observations."

That blog post at least will give you an idea of what I meant - saving me the trouble of explaining.

I didn't call the founders of QM "incompetent", but the exact opposite, they're "competent". My main point: if none of them had lived, somebody else would have figured it out. Progress might have been retarded by a few years at the most. Whereas, without the data (e.g. black body spectrum) nothing could happen.

You claim Bell is nothing but philosophy ("Bell’s theorem rests on no foundation except philosophy"). But that's too easy to refute. No doubt that's a bit of an exaggeration? Do you really want to maintain that claim? If so I'll be happy to demolish it :-)

You should not hang David Deutsch around my neck, on a blogger's belief that he is "true Popperian."

And you should not put [Popper] in brackets as if the quote were from his lips and not Deutsch's.  It is not Popper's view.

You should focus on two references in the context of this discussion:

David Miller, 1994, Critical Rationalism: a restatement and defense, Open Court Publishing; and
Karl Popper 1983, Realism and the Aim of Science, Routledge.

Please, let's use primary sources.

I wasn't suggesting that you thought quantum theorists were incompetent; I was suggesting that if you believe that " ... anyone who is competent can figure out the theory ..." then you would be forced to concede the incompetence of theorists who make conclusions out of data as if they were blind men describing an elephant.

You think it's easy to refute that Bell's theorem rests on philosophy alone?  Let us begin the demolishing. Cool

Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by Thomas Ray - 09-06-2016, 04:12 PM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 22 Guest(s)