Page 2 of 2
Re: There cannot be two theories for an error-free set of data
Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2024 10:05 pm
by Skepdick
wtf wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 9:39 pm
I doubt the OP had your personal hobby horse in mind.
The OP has identity in mind. That's probably why the OP concludes their post by asserting it.
In a Mathematical setting this amounts to intensional equality - indiscernability at any level of analysis.
Extensional equality won't do - why bring it up?
wtf wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 9:39 pm
I won't be further engaging with your monomania.
You aren't engaging me. You aren't engaging the OP. Who or what are you engaging?
A strawman of your own making?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiscernibles
Re: There cannot be two theories for an error-free set of data
Posted: Tue Aug 27, 2024 1:34 pm
by cladking
As a metaphysician I'd say that science can be defined as a methodology for finding as many explanations (theories) to define data as possible. Every time the prevailing theory changes we call it a "paradigm shift". Einstein said imagination is more important than genius and it is imagination that reorganizes what is known into new hypotheses to be tested.
Re: There cannot be two theories for an error-free set of data
Posted: Tue Aug 27, 2024 2:27 pm
by Skepdick
cladking wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2024 1:34 pm
As a metaphysician I'd say that science can be defined as a methodology for finding as many explanations (theories) to define data as possible. Every time the prevailing theory changes we call it a "paradigm shift". Einstein said imagination is more important than genius and it is imagination that reorganizes what is known into new hypotheses to be tested.
It really depends on what you think the activity of "defining data" entails. Never mind obtaining it.
Curve-fitting is boring and gives you nothing more than large language models.
Definability has its own limits.
Re: There cannot be two theories for an error-free set of data
Posted: Tue Aug 27, 2024 11:25 pm
by cladking
Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2024 2:27 pm
cladking wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2024 1:34 pm
As a metaphysician I'd say that science can be defined as a methodology for finding as many explanations (theories) to define data as possible. Every time the prevailing theory changes we call it a "paradigm shift". Einstein said imagination is more important than genius and it is imagination that reorganizes what is known into new hypotheses to be tested.
It really depends on what you think the activity of "defining data" entails. Never mind obtaining it.
Curve-fitting is boring and gives you nothing more than large language models.
Definability has its own limits.
Yes. Exactly. You guys are a little over my head but I can recognize the truth in your statements.
Virtually all logic and all inductive logic is wholly dependent on definitions and the logician. We have a remarkable inability to see this.