Western science catching up to Indigenous Traditional Knowledge

Re:Western science catching up to Indigenous Traditional Kno... by danharaj on Tuesday February 27, 2018 @04:44PM (#16478245)

There are examples that more severely show the limits of Popperian falsification. Such an example: Godel's incompleteness theorems are unfalsifiable. E.g. the second theorem can be proved in primitive recursive arithmetic, which means that its falsification would demonstrate the inconsistency of the theories that it applies to, but this is an even stronger result than it claimed.

So it's not even the case that empirical evidence is the ideal standard of evidence that we deviate from due to practical considerations. It is limited, period. Scientism is a philosophical sickness.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Western science catching up to Indigenous Traditional Kno... by scoofy on Monday March 05, 2018 @02:05AM (#16519298)

Godel's incompleteness theorem exists in a particular deductive system, it in no way holds weight outside of that system. His completeness theorem shows the mathematical logic is complete. Different deductive frameworks have different axioms.

All of which are essentially irrelevant to inductive systems like the natural sciences, for which Popper is writing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Western science catching up to Indigenous Traditional Kno... by haZard_OS on Tuesday February 27, 2018 @06:40PM (#16479243)

I have never met nor even corresponded with a colleague who believes that empirical evidence has no limits (whatever that might mean). Again, the charge of scientism seems to be little more than a bogeyman to silence or shame rigorous thinkers.

  When asked if science can, in principle, discover everything, I wouldn't even know how to respond. I'm not sure what such a question even means. 

  Scientists move forward in their research with the provisional assumption that progress can be made...what other option is there?

[ Parent | on HN ]