Talk:Pessimistic induction

Untitled

None of the "objections" written on the article hold water.

That some of the examples used by Laudan may not have been the most successful theories on their times is an objection to the examples used, but says nothing against the theory's claim itself.

Claiming that with scientific progress we indeed approximate the truth is wishful thinking. There is an infinite ammount of wrong theories and only one correct explanation for a given problem. One can spend the whole eternity researching wrong theories without ever touching the right answers.

And when a new theory is proposed, not always parts of the old theory found to be correct carry over. Many times, nothing at all carries over.

I believe those objections should be removed from the article, or presented in a manner more reflective of their nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.113.146.97 (talk) 10:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the previous poster that the objections raised seem out of place especially in an overview section. Maybe a separate section containing rebuttals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.21.197.170 (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Heading text

I have trouble believing that this sentiment had no expression before 1981. This is not only an uncited claim, but an extraordinary one, requiring extraordinary evidence. Any mention of Larry Laudan should be moved to the citations section, and the article rewritten with a neutral viewpoint, and not as a platform for the publication of "original research". Zkenyon (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Multiple Issues

I added a multiple issues tag.

Confusion - I've read a decent amount in philosophy of science and I was confused reading the first three paragraphs. See what you think.

Debate - The "overview" section, the bulk of the short article, reads like a debate.

Inline citations - still lacking.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 13:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)