5 ms·

To be honest, I do not know what you mean by scientific method and I have not made any claims about scientific method. I have made a distinction based falsifiab

To be honest, I do not know what you mean by scientific method and I have not made any claims about scientific method. I have made a distinction based falsifiability. Falsifiability does not need experiments, but _observations_. You have written your "obvious" point now a few times, but you have not written a single unfalsifiable claim of palaeontology or any of the many other sciences you claim that exists. My hypothesis is simple, _anything_ that claims being a science but makes unfalsifiable claims, is quackery. You see, this hypothesis itself is falsifiable, all you need to make is give a single unfalsifiable claim of a respectful science to prove this hypothesis false. So can you give _one_ example of palaeontology that is unfalsifiable? (Mathematics does not claim to be a science in popperian sense.)

berntb 10y ago
It is good to look up the scientific method before arguing about Popper. (Hint: It is in the first sentence of the second paragraph on Popper's wikipedia page. Also, your own link had the term as a related link.) Enough for me, bye. Edit: Another hint, Popper was amongst others professor of "logic and scientific method" at the University of London. It is also noted on his Wikipedia page. In short, you argue Popper without understanding what Popper argued about.
- beefield 10y ago
  I am not quite sure why you want to stick with the scientific method. I brought one very specific idea of Popper, falsification, that I think is relatively ideologue free and very useful to separate science from pseudoscience. And which happens to say that there are fundamental parts of economics that remind much more pseudoscience than proper science. This discussion is _extremely_ easy to bring forward. All you need to do is to tell _one_ properly scientific theory outside economics that is not falsifiable. If you can't do that, we can hopefully agree that economics is one of the rare species that seem to have some (questionable) scientific credibility without too strong foundation on falsifiable thinking.
  - berntb 10y ago
    >> why you want to stick with the scientific method. How can you have an opinion on that, after writing that you don't know what it is -- despite talking about Popper...? I told you I didn't need that for my argument. Bye.

berntb 10y ago

It is good to look up the scientific method before arguing about Popper. (Hint: It is in the first sentence of the second paragraph on Popper's wikipedia page. Also, your own link had the term as a related link.) Enough for me, bye. Edit: Another hint, Popper was amongst others professor of "logic and scientific method" at the University of London. It is also noted on his Wikipedia page. In short, you argue Popper without understanding what Popper argued about.

beefield 10y ago
I am not quite sure why you want to stick with the scientific method. I brought one very specific idea of Popper, falsification, that I think is relatively ideologue free and very useful to separate science from pseudoscience. And which happens to say that there are fundamental parts of economics that remind much more pseudoscience than proper science. This discussion is _extremely_ easy to bring forward. All you need to do is to tell _one_ properly scientific theory outside economics that is not falsifiable. If you can't do that, we can hopefully agree that economics is one of the rare species that seem to have some (questionable) scientific credibility without too strong foundation on falsifiable thinking.
- berntb 10y ago
  >> why you want to stick with the scientific method. How can you have an opinion on that, after writing that you don't know what it is -- despite talking about Popper...? I told you I didn't need that for my argument. Bye.