Falsification: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{g}}
{{a|philosophy|}}{{author|Karl Popper}}’s idea that, since the only way to rule out a scientific theory is with evidence that contradicts its predictions, it is a necessary condition of a bona fide scientific theory that it must be, in theory falsifi''able''. There must be evidence you ''could'' present that, if you could find it, ''would'' falsify the theory.
===Falsificationism generally===
{{author|Karl Popper}}’s idea that, since the only way to rule out a scientific theory is with evidence that contradicts its predictions, it is a necessary condition of a bona fide scientific theory that it must be, in theory falsifi''able''. There must be evidence you ''could'' present that, if you could find it, ''would'' falsify the theory.


If it isn’t possible to formulate counter-evidence, even in theory, then the theory must consistent with any possible facts, does not limit any possible outcomes, makes no predictions, as no explanatory power, and is not science.
If it isn’t possible to formulate counter-evidence, even in theory, then the theory must consistent with any possible facts, does not limit any possible outcomes, makes no predictions, as no explanatory power, and is not science.