Let R be a relation. Then “R(X, Y)” contradicts “not R(X, Y)”. Of course people can misuse language to be tricky about this.
Special relativity is falsifiable even though it defines position/velocity relationally.
Falsifiability, properly understood, is subjective, in that the falsifier must be some cognitive process that can make observations. Experimental results can only falsify theories if those results are observed by some cognitive process that can conceptualize the theory. Unobservable experimental results are of no use.
(Yes, the cognitive process may be a standardized intersubjective, if the observations and theories are common knowledge; Popper emphasizes this intersubjectivity in The Logic of Scientific Discovery. However, if Robinson Crusoe is theoretically capable of science, this intersubjectivity is not strictly necessary)
Let R be a relation. Then “R(X, Y)” contradicts “not R(X, Y)”.
But the relativist can just go to R(X,YZ). It’s a general counterargument.
Special relativity is falsifiable even though it defines position/velocity relationally.
As discussed, relativity isn’t relativism.
...the falsifier must be some cognitive process that can make observations. Experimental results can only falsify theories if those results are observed by some cognitive process that can conceptualize the theory. Unobservable experimental results are of no use.
None of that ^^^ supports this VVV …
Falsifiability, properly understood, is subjective,[...]
...because “subjective” doesn’t mean “done by some kind of agent”.
Yes, the cognitive process may be a standardized intersubjective[...]
Let R be a relation. Then “R(X, Y)” contradicts “not R(X, Y)”. Of course people can misuse language to be tricky about this.
Special relativity is falsifiable even though it defines position/velocity relationally.
Falsifiability, properly understood, is subjective, in that the falsifier must be some cognitive process that can make observations. Experimental results can only falsify theories if those results are observed by some cognitive process that can conceptualize the theory. Unobservable experimental results are of no use.
(Yes, the cognitive process may be a standardized intersubjective, if the observations and theories are common knowledge; Popper emphasizes this intersubjectivity in The Logic of Scientific Discovery. However, if Robinson Crusoe is theoretically capable of science, this intersubjectivity is not strictly necessary)
But the relativist can just go to R(X,YZ). It’s a general counterargument.
As discussed, relativity isn’t relativism.
None of that ^^^ supports this VVV …
...because “subjective” doesn’t mean “done by some kind of agent”.
Indeed.