I would like to make few remarks. The discussion was very good, at least from my point of view. This is not sarcasm, I met several very intelligent opponents, I give them a credit for that. Now I know what I would have to do to improve my presentation. First of all I would have to explain to an audience why I chose the videotape (CD) thing. I would also have to elaborate on the method of induction in general.
One thing came as a total surprise -- I expected that my opponents base their critiques on scientific realism, which is trending very high these days, but instead they chose the obscure Popper doctrine he called "deductivism"
Deductivism became a dominant philosophy and replaced positivism in several scientific fields including elementary particle physics, astrophysics, biology, sociology and several others in 1950s. Positivism remained dominant in solid state physics, plasma physics, chemistry, etc.
The media pay inordinate attention to elementary particle physics and astrophysics because they deal with the topics of the universe creation and evolution. It would be fair to say that there were times where deductivism was the predominant philosophical system.
Deductivism went into sharp decline in early 1980s and was almost completely replaced with scientific realism (not to be confused with realism) due to the advent of the superstring theories. I would say that one bad doctrine was replaced by another, equally bad doctrine.
The superstring theories did tremendous damage to modern physics. Before you rush to defense of these theories you should read the book, Not Even Wrong, by P. Woit. The author is one of few remaining scientists who subscribe to the Popper doctrine. In his book he wrote that the superstring theories are incompatible with deductivism because they cannot be falsified and, therefore, are wrong. He also describes the debacle that elementary particle physics and cosmology face these days.
In the future I plan to participate in the conferences dedicated to the superstring theories and whenever possible criticize them. I can use the ideas that I presented here, in modified form, to attack scientific realism and its application to the superstrings. In particular I am planning to criticize the anthropic principle.
No, I am not a physicist. I have MS in Mechanical Engineering with concentration in Control Systems Theory. After obtaining my degree I returned to my alma mater, Polytechnic Institute of NY, as a special student. The word "special" applies to the students who take courses not geared towards a degree.
I took four graduate courses in quantum mechanics and one course in Lie groups theory. My education backgrounds enabled me to read original articles on the Standard Model and superstrings theories. I fully accept the Standard Model, but disagree with the superstrings crap.
I heard about Popper, of course, but before reading his famous book, THe Logic of Scientific Discovery, 5 months ago I had no knowledge of his method of proof and the falsifiability. To me his deductive logic is based on a flimsy foundation.
If anyone wants to debate Popper's book and his articles with me, I'll happily do so at another thread in the Science section. Frankly, I am more interested in debates involving scientific realism.
Sorry, I am running out of time now, I have to return to my work. I'll be back tomorrow.
