Difference between revisions of "Talk:String theory"
(Falsifiability is from Pragmatism, not Positivism) |
(sounds good, so please incorporate into entry) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Because of the strong mathematical content of String Theory, a positivist would be more likely to accept it as a scientific theory than a pragmatist. | Because of the strong mathematical content of String Theory, a positivist would be more likely to accept it as a scientific theory than a pragmatist. | ||
| + | |||
| + | : Your comments here make sense to me, and were consistent with my original entry until someone else changed it. How about fixing up the entry itself with your improvements?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:20, 25 February 2007 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 02:20, February 26, 2007
Falsifiability is from Pragmatism, not Positivism
Advocates of logical positivism such as Wittgenstein, Carnap, et. al. held that scientific propositions should be verifiable, thus the name "positivism". The question became what, exactly, it meant for something to be verifiable, so the logical positivists developed a theory of logic & language to be put to use in the course of empirical investigations.
Karl Popper and W.V. Quine were the pragmatists who took issue with the positivist position of verifiability and required a falsifiability condition from empirical claims on the grounds that one could never actually verify a claim through empirical investigation, but one could most assuredly prove it wrong through experimentation.
Because of the strong mathematical content of String Theory, a positivist would be more likely to accept it as a scientific theory than a pragmatist.
- Your comments here make sense to me, and were consistent with my original entry until someone else changed it. How about fixing up the entry itself with your improvements?--Aschlafly 21:20, 25 February 2007 (EST)
