Samson Corwell

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Samson Corwell

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Samson Corwell
  • Favorite Music, Artworks, Movies, Shows, etc.
    Kingdom of Heaven
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    science, government, (geo)politics

Recent Profile Visitors

5,959 profile views
  1. How long has this back-and-forth over science between you and Bob been going on for? It appears to me that you and him have been at it for at least six years, but I get the feeling it might be longer.
  2. What are some of these insights of theirs?
  3. This has bothered me. If the fact that we cannot "conduct controlled experiments" is the problem, then shouldn't this also rule out astronomy as an empirical science. After all, all we have are observations, much like economic history. And why does the "singular facts do not come attached with their own meanings" not also apply to astronomy (or any of the other "hard" sciences)? Didn't Popper say something about fact (or maybe it was observations) being theory-laden?
  4. Sorry! I meant younger.
  5. You look older in your picture.
  6. I actually haven't read it. I have read what Krauss says he does (or claims to do) and I've read/heard the ideas of his that he put into the book. He claims that physics can explain why there is "something" instead of "nothing". His explanation boils down to: the conditions in quantum fields (or something of the sort) are such that they give rise to particles and space. That's a fine explanation—if he were explaining why there are particles instead of just quantum stuff. The giant hole: quantum fields are something rather than nothing. His explanation doesn't address that big question at all.
  7. You are correct that it is not a problem with the "hard" sciences (I recognize no such distinction). It is a problem with falsificationism.
  8. You cannot say that one scientific theory has a problem without having other scientific theories that are taken to be confirmed, and falsification does not provide a way to confirm theories.
  9. One gaping hole in falsification is that it needs a theory on what constitutes confirmation.
  10. Krauss is of the same mentality as Bob. His book A Universe from Nothing was a train wreck and his response to criticisms of it was that science, unlike philosophy, is "useful". Given that Bob's tact, which you've ridiculed as nonsense (which I agree with), is almost identical to Krauss', him writing the foreword is perplexing.
  11. Anyone familiar with it? Anyone find it convincing? I've become partial to Berkley's metaphysics in the past few years. I've gotten the impression that it is more in line with Aristotle than Locke's dualist empiricism.
  12. I'd go with "travellling", but it seems that a single L is also acceptable, as with a word like "labelling"/"labeling".
  13. Ain't that a kick. Happens to my spell checker, too.
  14. LP or LTV: which one is philosophically worse?
  15. How?