Talk:Scientific realism

message: Just pick the one section "most significant", since I'm not the one who presumes there is one section "most significant".  Clearly it is beyond me, yet obvious to others, that understanding of past errors does not inform better understanding, inference, and decisionmaking. I do not know how many times I must say it, yet my approach is very alike that of Karl Popper, as I believe that knowledge grows by a process of conjecture and refutation.  Humans are not brilliant or original.  Microorganisms can figure out solutions that human volunteers cannot.  Humans see something, observe its failures, and then offer an explanation of why it failed.  Thus knowledge grows.  The wheel was invented only once.  Refuse to analyze the past?  Okay, you have ejected me from this sinking ship.  Perhaps if in the future others join me in the ability to take criticism—meaning critique and not just accusations—I can return and contribute. For now, I simply cannot contribute, since my whole approach to understanding and improvement is forbidden. I hold no hard feelings. Some things are just not meant to be. Kusername (talk) 08:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. It looks like the episode is finished then. StAnselm (talk) 10:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This will help us all move forward: 

message: It occurs to me that some form of linkage to the different definitions of truth may be indicated. For instance, scientific realism (at least to me) gets closer to instrumentalism if the pragmatic theory of truth is used. (Would one way to sum this up be "if it looks like truth, and quacks like truth, and walks like truth, it is truth"? As in, as long as something reliably acts as true, it might as well be true for all (important, IMO) intents and purposes. This is the "working definition" that I use as a scientist, for things for which we have enough data for science to be applicable.) Some form of reliable source will need to be found for much expansion onto this, of course. Allens (talk) 10:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of truth in use? 

message: :Article is biased and lacks historical context. After a quick perusal of the article, my impression is that content is mainly a few superficial assertions. Also, the archived talk page is amusing to scan through. If I were those guys, I'd be embarrassed.
76.250.61.95 (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased & 

message: WP DEPENDS ON INDUCTION & DEDUCTION.  THEIR MEANING SHOULD BE FIRM
This encyclopedia accepts the premise of enumerative induction that the more editors who agree on the content of an article, the more accurate and useful that content.  Induction is practiced on every TALK page.  Editors generalize from a few observations, and deduce concrete conclusions from their generalizations.
WP contains 4 repetitive and fragmentary articles on induction: [Inductive reasoning], [The problem of induction]; [New riddle of induction],[Inductivism].  I would like to rectify this chaotic situation by rewriting and merging these 4 articles, retaining only the reasoning title.  I ask you—a participant in relevant TALK pages—to judge my rewrite/merge project: SHOULD I PROCEED?  Below is the current proposed outline:
Definitions.  Induction generalizes conceptually; deduction concludes empirically.
[David Hume], philosopher condemner.
[Pierre Duhem], physicist user.
[John Dewey], philosopher explainer.
[Bertrand Russell], philosopher condemner.
[Karl Popper], philosopher condemner.
Steven Sloman, psychologist explainer.
Lyle E. Bourne, Jr., psychologist user.
[Daniel Kahneman], psychologist user.
[Richard H. Thaler] economist user.
Please respond at Talk:Inductive reasoning. TBR-qed (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Induction & deduction