
Constructive Empiricism - mgaw
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/constructive-empiricism/
======
thenerdfiles

        To present a theory is to specify a family of structures, its
        models; and secondly, to specify certain parts of those 
        models (the empirical substructures) as candidates for the
        direct representation of observable phenomena.
        — van Fraassen. The Scientific Image. Page 64. 1980.
    

This is Wittgenstein's family resemblance concept applied to Popper's notion
of "conjectures" in "the system of reference by means of which we interpret an
unknown language".

    
    
        It is not only agreement in definitions but also (odd as it
        may sound) in judgments that is required.
        — Wittgenstein's PI, somewhere deep in there around 200.
    

The "unknown language" is itself the outward bounds of possible sense data for
which we must cultivate a scientific description framework — or, if you will,
RDF (Resource Description Framework).

From the perspective of a Hilbertian mathematical ideal, all conjectures are a
kind of "paradise" for which we must apply method and tools. Strictly
speaking, linguistic items serve as the material edifice in which we make
experiment and theorizing about "propositions" and "mathematical
objectivities" insofar as their existences are palpabable (by Occam's Razor,
and various other First Principles) which would appear repugnant to reason to
flout, ignore, or misplace.

------
MattHeard
I've been waiting for the SEP to provide a mobile-friendly layout for a long
time. Until now, I've been downloading articles to Pocket.

------
Fasebook
Constructive Empiricism sounds like real science where "science" in general or
scientific realism specifically is more like a religion. By applying the
scientific principle, in principle, to science itself, you end up with a meta-
science that is intuitively more correct.

------
FD3SA
May the force be with those who chose another path of understanding than
science.

Their lives must be ecstatically thrilling as nothing is certain, constant or
knowable. I truly admire the masochism of these brave souls, as they battle
seen and unseen foes alike for the duration of their exciting lives.

Meanwhile, us poor scientists must deal with the boredom and stability that
comes with scientific understanding. The laws of the universe are forever
constant, the narrative of the universe unchanging, and the world predictable
and understandable, just waiting for curious minds to uncover its ancient
mechanisms. Terrible, eternal boredom.

Alas, I must return to insufferable monotony. Live long and prosper.

~~~
pelario
How it is possible that the most voted comment has not read the article, or if
it did, it didn't understand a single word?

The article is actually about philosophy of science: not against scientific
understanding, but making questions one step forward, trying to understand the
relationship between science and reality.

