Talk:Quasi-empirical method

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

Problems with this text:

Hard scientists are also concerned with the reliability of these methods to some degree, but only in fields (e.g. string theory) where direct experimental invalidation (i.e. finding counter-examples) is difficult or impossible. In such circumstances a scientist falls back on the same quasi-empirical methods as mathematicians.

At best there needs to be another example. It's not difficult or impossible to experimentally falsible string theory. String theory makes (or at least should make) some easily testable predictions about the universe.

Not necessary to produce all counterexamples[edit]

Added a bullet to note that the requirement to find all counterexamples to kill a theory is unnecessary. One counterexample suffices. Thus the argument in scientific method that science is really quasi-empirical is suspect.169.207.90.10 07:46, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The point on Albert Einstein is uncited, misleading, and quite arguably false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.154.56.136 (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What basis does this have?[edit]

Is this a school of thought or what? There are no citations.

(1) Reading this together with "quasi-empiricism in mathematics", it appears that the (by themselves very interesting) questions of sociology of mathematics and mathematical practice are supposed to "achieve epistemology similar to that of empiricism" for mathematics.

I don't think that's what they are supposed to do or can do!

(2) Reading the article directly, we learn that thought experiments are supposed to "achieve epistemology similar to that of empiricism" for their subjects.

This seems very doubtful.

Both of these inferences seem very doubtful, or at least pretty watery, as philosophical claims.

So, if someone reputable wrote the claims in a book, or if there is a school of thought that makes such claims, that's encyclopedic.

But with no citations, I guess the only way I can find out what is meant here in this article is to come to your livingroom and have a long, rambling conversation.

89.217.26.56 (talk) 10:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]