From: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk   
      
   On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 17:41:39 +0100, Cl.Massé wrote:   
      
   >>> There is no order.   
   >   
   > "David Mitchell"  a écrit dans le message de   
   > news: pan.2007.02.05.22.21.25.102128@edenroad.demon.co.uk   
   >   
   >> Of course there is: with a finite number of experimenters and a finite   
   >> amount of cash (and time) with which to experiment, there must be.   
   >   
   > No, both hypothesis must be tested simultaneously, otherwise nothing is done   
   > at all.   
      
   Clearly you cannot mean what you have actually said - since my description   
   includes definitely doing something. ;-)   
      
   Are you able to clarify what you mean?   
      
   >>> An experiment which discriminate the explanations must   
   >>> be done.   
   >   
   >> Doesn't that precisely contradict your previous sentence?   
   >   
   > No.   
      
   And are you able to be a little less terse?   
      
   >>> An order implies a scale of values: first something serious or   
   >>> "rational", then something crazy.   
   >   
   >> Exactly.   
   >   
   > So you put a label a priori on each type of explanation.  That can hardly be   
   > called "rational".  That's called "prejudice" or "bigotry".  The scientific   
   > method isn't at all what you advocate.   
      
   Well, the SM itself favours hypotheses which can be falsified over those   
   which can't - in that sense they are ordered.   
      
   Perhaps you'd like to explain what precisely the SM _is_?   
      
   >   
   >>> By that token, the second option is never   
   >>> investigated, and the first one goes from failure to failure, which is   
   >>> claimed to prove nothing, and leads to the sadly famous: "there is no   
   >>> proof (and no investigation besides.)"   
   >   
   >> It depends on how the experiments are constructed.  If there are   
   >> falsifiable premises in the chain, they can be eliminated quickly; which   
   >> is to everyone's benefit.   
   >   
   > Every "serious and rational" premise will be taken, which will all be   
   > falsified, going from failure to failure etc...   
      
   Now I think it's you who are showing your prejudices.   
      
   >   
   >>> In the example of Kepler, he thought of a geometrical harmony, set up by   
   >>> God.  His mathematical description of an orbit then became more likely   
   >>> than the epicycles theory.   
   >   
   >> It doesn't really matter where the inspiration comes from: it's the   
   >> working out of the mathematics which determines the truth (with the   
   >> obvious "emperical reality" caveats)   
   >   
   > No, no "rational" reasoning provide inspiration of any sort.  Where the   
   > inspiration comes from determines the whole efficiency of the method.   
   > Mathematics without any hypothesis go nowhere.  The fact is, the greater   
   > discoverers had a brimming imagination, overflowing up to craze.  The   
   > today's diehard "rationalist" are ants on their shoulders.   
      
   Your opinion is noted.   
      
   --   
   =======================================================================   
   = David    --- If you use Microsoft products, you will, inevitably, get   
   = Mitchell --- viruses, so please don't add me to your address book.   
   =======================================================================   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)