82,891
edits
Falsification: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{g}} | {{g}} | ||
===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. | {{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. | ||
It that isn’t possible, even in theory, then the theory is consistent with all possible facts, does not limit any possible outcomes, makes no predictions, and is not science. | It that isn’t possible, even in theory, then the theory is consistent with all possible facts, does not limit any possible outcomes, makes no predictions, and is not science. | ||
Mathematical axioms, for example, can’t be falsified. There are no possible circumstances, at least within the [[ | Mathematical axioms, for example, can’t be falsified. There are no possible circumstances, at least within the [[paradigm]] of Euclidian geometry, in which 2 +2 ≠ 4. | ||
Therefore the mathematical statement 2 +2 = 4 is not scientific. This isn’t as controversial as it might seem if you have never heard it before and it has just slapped you in the face. How can mathematics — the very language of science — not be scientific? But that is the key to it: it is a language in which falsifiable scientific statements may be made; its own internal logic is not, of itself, a matter of science 2 + 2 = 4 is ''logically'' true, not ''empirically'' true. You don’t need evidence to prove it. | Therefore the mathematical statement 2 +2 = 4 is not scientific. This isn’t as controversial as it might seem if you have never heard it before and it has just slapped you in the face. How can mathematics — the very language of science — not be scientific? But that is the key to it: it is a language in which falsifiable scientific statements may be made; its own internal logic is not, of itself, a matter of science 2 + 2 = 4 is ''logically'' true, not ''empirically'' true. You don’t need evidence to prove it. | ||
Far more controversial is the contention that [[evolution by natural selection]], for exactly the same reason, isn’t scientific either. | Far more controversial is the contention that [[evolution by natural selection]], for exactly the same reason, isn’t scientific either. | ||
===Kuhn vs. Popper celebrity death match=== | |||
{{verification and falsification}} | {{verification and falsification}} | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*{{br|The Structure of Scientific Revolutions}} | *{{br|The Structure of Scientific Revolutions}} | ||