1,019
edits
Changes
→Manufacturing facts from a theory
:: No, you are confusing predicting things and manufacturing facts. Vulcan was a prediction of the prevailing theory at the time. That's distinct. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:02, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:: No, you are confusing predicting things and manufacturing facts. Vulcan was a prediction of the prevailing theory at the time. That's distinct. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:02, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:::Indeed; as I suspected, this really is broad enough to catch any scientific inference one doesn't like.
:::Incidentally, as far as Occam goes, Vulcan was a considerably better hypothesis than some mysterious modification to Newtonian gravity, at least when it was first proposed. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:50, 6 March 2007 (EST)
== Twoproblems ==
== Twoproblems ==
Newton's laws are not an example of an overgeneralization, but an example of an inferrence that didn't generalize as much and so shouldn't be in that set. The argument from authority section also misses that experts are only relevant if they have access to more resources of some form not accesible to the people in question (although strictly speaking, from a formal logical perspective, such an argument is never valid- but we seem to be not distinguishing between formal and informal logic here). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 10:36, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Newton's laws are not an example of an overgeneralization, but an example of an inferrence that didn't generalize as much and so shouldn't be in that set. The argument from authority section also misses that experts are only relevant if they have access to more resources of some form not accesible to the people in question (although strictly speaking, from a formal logical perspective, such an argument is never valid- but we seem to be not distinguishing between formal and informal logic here). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 10:36, 6 March 2007 (EST)