论文标题
Mond和方法论
MOND and Methodology
论文作者
论文摘要
在Logik der Forschung和后来的作品中，Karl Popper为科学家提出了一组方法论规则。其中的要求是，理论朝着增加内容的方向发展，并且只有在实验证实其一些新颖的预测时才应接受新理论。目前有两种可行的宇宙学理论：标准宇宙学模型，以及由于mordehai Milgrom称为Mond的理论。这两种理论都可以指出成功和失败，但是只有蒙德反复做出了新的预测，随后被认为是正确的。相比之下，标准模型宇宙学家几乎总是以事后方式对新的观察做出反应，根据需要调整或增强其理论，以获得与事实的对应关系。我认为，这些方法论上的差异使这两种理论的“真实性”或“真实性”基本上是不可能的，因为这两组科学家通常以截然不同的方式与事实进行了对应，并且我建议更好地指导这些理论对真理的指南可能是方法论本身。
In Logik der Forschung and later works, Karl Popper proposed a set of methodological rules for scientists. Among these were requirements that theories evolve in the direction of increasing content, and that new theories should only be accepted if some of their novel predictions are experimentally confirmed. There are currently two, viable theories of cosmology: the standard cosmological model, and a theory due to Mordehai Milgrom called MOND. Both theories can point to successes and failures, but only MOND has repeatedly made novel predictions that were subsequently found to be correct. Standard-model cosmologists, by contrast, have almost always responded to new observations in a post-hoc manner, adjusting or augmenting their theory as needed to obtain correspondence with the facts. I argue that these methodological differences render a comparison of the two theories in terms of their "truthlikeness" or "verisimilitude" essentially impossible since the two groups of scientists achieve correspondence with the facts in often very different ways, and I suggest that a better guide to the theories' progress toward truth might be the methodologies themselves.
