Re: Implications of Recent Developments in Network Science

On 13 Feb 2013, at 11:08, Brett Hall wrote:

> On 13/02/2013, at 20:07, "Alan Forrester" alanmichaelforrester-gM/[email protected] 
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > On 11 Feb 2013, at 11:41, JAG jaguarnight2012-/[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > --- In [email protected], "hibbsa" wrote:
> > >> Here's the extra implication to the domain of 'philosphy of  
> science' as
> > >> I see it.
> > >
> > > Greetings to all.....
> > >
> > > not exactyly a respond to the topic discussed here but here is  
> another real-LEGIT implication to the domain of philosophy of  
> science (that is, according to Hume's following idea):
> > >
> > > "How is 'experimental reasoning' about causes and effects itself
> > > justified? In terms of deduction? that is impossible since the
> > > conclusion of inductive arguments are not deductively derivable  
> from
> > > their premises. In terms of experimental reasoning? that is  
> arguing
> > > in circle."
> > > -Hume
> >
> > It isn't justified. Justification is unnecessary and impossible.  
> See "The Beginning of Infinity" by David Deutsch and "Realism and  
> the Aim of Science" by Karl Popper.
> >
> > Alan
> >
>
> And see also The Fabric of Reality, the title of the book from which  
> this list draws its own name. Specifically, read chapter 3 and  
> perhaps then come back here with questions.
>
Justification and proofs make sense in the frame of a theory  
(hypothesis, conjecture, postulate, question).

We cannot justify *as true* any application of a theory. But we can  
still justify the "use" of a theory, for some application, usually by  
showing it clear and simple (or more clear or simple or encompassing  
than other theories).

Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]