82,891
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{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. | ||
{{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. |