4 ms·
Why? What fundamental reason is there to reject the untestable and the unfalsifiable? At worst, these claims fall into an epistemological netherworld where they
by bertiewhykovich 10y ago
Why? What fundamental reason is there to reject the untestable and the unfalsifiable? At worst, these claims fall into an epistemological netherworld where they can neither be ascribed truth nor falsity -- at best they may be useful tools.
- M_Grey 10y agoSo your idea of R&D is essentially random, but because you'll occasionally happen upon something useful, don't knock it? Truly, the philosophy of science is dead.
- bertiewhykovich 10y agoThat's not at all what I'm suggesting. I am not advocating for the arbitrary assignment of confidence intervals, expected values, or whatever your chosen epistemological metric is -- I am advocating for restraint in assigning falsity to what we merely cannot assign truth. Logical positivism is not boundary of philosophy of science.
- M_Grey 10y agoThere's a difference between, "Can't assign truth" and "Not testable or falsifiable." A difference I hope not to have to explain.