3 ms·
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. You've added some things to my reading list. :-) Not to contradict anything you've said, but my original message above w
by civility 8y ago
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. You've added some things to my reading list. :-)
Not to contradict anything you've said, but my original message above was in response to something very different than I think you're talking about. I see a lot of comments where people seem to treat Science as some unquestionable list of facts and treat Scientists reverently. It's like they've made a religion out of it and don't dare question the priests - which is ironic/silly when they're refuting conventional religions.
Anyways, maybe my current view is a little too hard line on good science relying on falsification, but I still reject the notion that any scientific belief is verifiable / provable. A given theory may be the best we have, but a new piece of information could change it radically.
- FabHK 8y agoOh, yeah, and Popper's falsification criterion is a great starting point, and it does help to differentiate science from non-science, and it does correctly underscore the tentativeness of scientific knowledge. All I wanted to add is that things are more complicated than just that one demarcation line, and philosophy of science has not stood still over the last half century.