alt Hacker NewsI meant your second perspective.
I'm in the Popper camp on your example. You may have good reasons as to why you say he's wrong, but isn't that the scientific method: showing things to be false. If it can't be shown to be false then how can it be scientific? It might be some other branch of thought.
On the specific case of quantum mechanics - I want to see these forever promised quantum computers actually doing something useful. The promises went from (Vs classical computers) they will do everything faster, to they will do some things faster, to they will do some things not achievable at all. And yet, they still haven't done anything as far as I can tell. Physicists need to answer honestly for this.
Replies
Quantum computers were proposed primarily as a means for physicists to do simulations of quantum mechanics. I don't think the 'they'll be faster at everything' hype came from them, in fact this basically seems to have come from people misunderstanding the point of them. So I don't think physicists have anything to answer for on this, only perhaps pop-sci writers (most of whom don't think have claimed such a thing either).
From my personal observation, those whose scientific understanding I admire mostly see little value in what the philosophers have produced. Those who I see admiring the philosophers seldom demonstrate much scientific understanding. Therefore my personal observations do not lead me to the belief that the philosophy helps scientific observation.
You are an illustration. You just argued that one of the most successful scientific theories over the last century should not be considered scientific because it is probabilistic in nature. In so doing you deny all of the evidence for it. Including the theory that allowed us to build the transistors that allow your computer to work.
Evolution these days depends on the theory of population genetics, which is again fundamentally probabilistic in nature. Are you now going to take the position that the theory of evolution is also not scientific?
If so, then your definition of science is so ludicrous that I'm comfortable in dismissing it with derision.