• Prishon
    984
    This question has its origin in recent discourse I had with a forum member I (already now) regard highly. I asked if after a new scientific has been proposed shouldnt we at some point just hold for true. Not for the time being only but always.

    You can keep on falsifying and criticising but would this kill the theory? Most theories can be put to the test but what if the theory can be tested only theoretical, by means of other theories that can be tested in experiment. If the new theory contains elements that can't be tested in principle but that explain things that are testable what then. The Higgs mechanism is such an example but it's clear that that mechanism doesn't exist and is just a means to predict a real exising excitation of a composed scalar field.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.