Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 10 (theory of theories)

On 3/24/2025 7:53 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 03/24/2025 11:20 AM, Jim Burns wrote:

A big criticism of using falsifiability
to determine what deserves the label 'science'
is that
a theory can pretty much always be saved
by tweaking in various ways.
(See also Ptolemaic epicycles.)
>
It seems that a theory can be saved
_and it will be saved_
until a better theory comes along.
Physics is not like mathematics.

Can't trust tweakers.
>
Any new scientific theory (of all the theories)
must not be falsified by _any_ of the data,
or it's just an application in a sub-field,
not "the theory".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions
⎛
⎜ Kuhn argued for an episodic model in which
⎜ periods of conceptual continuity and cumulative progress,
⎜ referred to as periods of "normal science",
⎜ were interrupted by periods of revolutionary science.
⎜ The discovery of "anomalies" accumulating and
⎜ precipitating revolutions in science leads to new paradigms.
⎜ New paradigms then ask new questions of old data,
⎜ move beyond the mere "puzzle-solving" of the previous paradigm,
⎜ alter the rules of the game and
⎝ change the "map" directing new research.

not "the theory".

You (RF) are concerned that some theory might not be
"the theory".
You can stop worrying about that.
_No_ theory in the physical sciences is "the theory".
Conceivably, someday,
if we avoid extincting ourselves (a big 'if'),
we will be glowy brains in glass tubes
betting our quatloos on thrall competitors,
and we will have "the theory".
Today is not that day.