[MD] tiny skull... change... nothingness...

[Case]

[Ham]
People untrained in Scientific disciplines often fail to recognize that the
principles and theories are always open to fallibility.  That is, as more
facts are discovered through observation and verification, a theory can be
proved wrong; and the scientist is obliged to acknowledge his errors and
revise his theory.  The cosmology of Galileo, for example, was changed by
the observations of Copernicus, and experiments in Quantum Physics made
Newtonian theory obsolete.  

[Case]
Someone trained in science would know that Galileo developed his cosmology
after Copernicus was dead. They might appreciate the fact the Einstein and
the quantum physics have not made Newton's theories obsolete. We all use
them everyday to interact with the world. Advancements in physics have
changed our understanding of Newton. They refine his work. They explain
things his could not. But the beauty of science is that often as in the case
of Newton we build and expand on what we have learned.

Someone trained in science and thoughtful about philosophy would know that
that the idea that we could be wrong is as central to science as it should
be to philosophy. Science is a system for trying to determine whether or not
we are wrong. Pure science involves testing the Null hypothesis, it other
words it proceeds from the idea that we could be wrong and looks for ways to
prove it.

Proving that a hypothesis is wrong is not at all like admitting an error.
Someone with all that training and thought would know that a scientific
theory develops its strength when hypothesis in opposition to it repeatedly
fail.

[Ham]
Philosophy is totally open to fallibility is difficult to determine, since
the fundamental concepts are incapable of empirical proof, and the same
ideas keep coming up through succeeding generations of philosophers.

[Case]
So like science is grounded in experience and experiment and philosophy
floats on hot air?

I slept through the rest of lecture. Anybody take notes?