How something can come from nothing

[GameOver22]

Soleron said:

GameOver22 said:

Soleron said:

...

I've read both....and more : )

Personally, I think its complicated. I don't think either Popper or Kuhn got it entirely right, but they both hit on some important points, especially in regards to the role of falsification in science. I never read him in depth, but I actually like Lakatos more than Kuhn. I think he was one of Kuhn's students.

Yeah. I'm studying at my university's Department of History and Philosophy of Science which is exactly about this.

I really dislike Lakatos's attempts to throw a bunch of words at the problem. I don't think science can be described with a written definition or method. Scientists themselves tend not to read about it, so sometimes I feel all their work is wasted. Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos and Feyerabend are the four main people we study to start with, and of course all of their arguments have flaws or counter-examples.

True. That's pretty much philosophy in general. There are no sure answers.

As for the first part of your post, that's pretty much my experience too. It seems that the scientific method/definitions of science are really just general rules that always have exceptions. Its always interesting to see how philosopher's look at this stuff, but its practical import, once you start research always seems to be minimal. There are some common-sense rules that are important to follow, but the details are malleable.