Not the voice of Bart Simpson. A philosopher who wrote a book called "How the Laws of Physics Lie".
Now she regrets the title. At the time, it was a useful way to talk about the epistemology of science. Now, that language has been co-opted to spread disinformation.
When scientists are being excruciatingly precise, they'll say that they can rule out falsehoods but never really assert the truth. Philosophers call it the Problem of Induction: you only have finite data, and new data might invalidate any theory.
Used sloppily, this means you can just ignore any science you don't like. But nobody does that consistently; it's always ideologically motivated, not rooted in epistemology. It's lazy, and stupid, but it's a constant feature of political discourse about science.
Which is too bad, because the actual epistemology of science is fascinating. Popperian falsification isn't nearly as complete as we're often led to believe. But it's hard to talk about in public without it turning into a political diatribe.
Not the voice of Bart Simpson. A philosopher who wrote a book called "How the Laws of Physics Lie".
Now she regrets the title. At the time, it was a useful way to talk about the epistemology of science. Now, that language has been co-opted to spread disinformation.
When scientists are being excruciatingly precise, they'll say that they can rule out falsehoods but never really assert the truth. Philosophers call it the Problem of Induction: you only have finite data, and new data might invalidate any theory.
Used sloppily, this means you can just ignore any science you don't like. But nobody does that consistently; it's always ideologically motivated, not rooted in epistemology. It's lazy, and stupid, but it's a constant feature of political discourse about science.
Which is too bad, because the actual epistemology of science is fascinating. Popperian falsification isn't nearly as complete as we're often led to believe. But it's hard to talk about in public without it turning into a political diatribe.