3 ms·

Not at all, the matter is of falsifying hypotheses, and just as one can falsify hypotheses in physics, one can also falsify them in astrology. Popper said: >“s

Not at all, the matter is of falsifying hypotheses, and just as one can falsify hypotheses in physics, one can also falsify them in astrology. Popper said: >“statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable observations” But this excludes the possibility that there is a pseudoscientific claim that is refutable. One such claim from astrology might be that the position of the planets decide our fate to die on a particular day etc. But this can be and has been falsified. According to Popper, if it can't be tested then it's not science, but if it can be tested and shown to be correct or incorrect then it is science. Popper confirms this interpretation later: >“A sentence (or a theory) is empirical-scientific if and only if it is falsifiable.”

mcbits 8y ago
Testing and refining the "theories" of astrology would qualify as scientific inquiry, but what practitioners of astrology actually do is far from scientific, so the subject itself really shouldn't be considered a science.
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  But this process of testing and refining theories is the application of the scientific method to claims of astrology isn't any different to the way it's done in physics, nor does it rule out a possible hypothesis being put forward which is successful. Practitioners of astrology put forward at least some falsifiable hypotheses (or at least, we can interpret them as hypotheses) just as physicists do. If the criterion for science is simply whether or not the hypotheses can be falsified, this very much includes astrology and can exclude (as I mentioned in the case of Nature) legitimate science. By saying that astrology is far from scientific simply opens the question again: what counts as science? We both agree that astrology isn't science, or it shouldn't be considered science, but my point is simply that the criterion of falsifiability is not sufficient to delineate science from non-science. Maybe we should say that the majority of claims made in the field should be (i) falsifiable (ii) shown to be correct, but that still leaves several cases open.
  - mcbits 8y ago
    I agree that science is more than just making falsifiable claims, but I don't think that's a fair characterization of Popper. From what I understand of Popper's philosophy (not having read his work first-hand), science is the development and refinement of theories that produce falsifiable claims. That already disqualifies astrology, and we could certainly add more criteria. But I don't think "shown to be correct" should be one because it's impossible in general, which is what inspired the falsifiability criterion in the first place.

mcbits 8y ago

Testing and refining the "theories" of astrology would qualify as scientific inquiry, but what practitioners of astrology actually do is far from scientific, so the subject itself really shouldn't be considered a science.

claudiawerner 8y ago
But this process of testing and refining theories is the application of the scientific method to claims of astrology isn't any different to the way it's done in physics, nor does it rule out a possible hypothesis being put forward which is successful. Practitioners of astrology put forward at least some falsifiable hypotheses (or at least, we can interpret them as hypotheses) just as physicists do. If the criterion for science is simply whether or not the hypotheses can be falsified, this very much includes astrology and can exclude (as I mentioned in the case of Nature) legitimate science. By saying that astrology is far from scientific simply opens the question again: what counts as science? We both agree that astrology isn't science, or it shouldn't be considered science, but my point is simply that the criterion of falsifiability is not sufficient to delineate science from non-science. Maybe we should say that the majority of claims made in the field should be (i) falsifiable (ii) shown to be correct, but that still leaves several cases open.
- mcbits 8y ago
  I agree that science is more than just making falsifiable claims, but I don't think that's a fair characterization of Popper. From what I understand of Popper's philosophy (not having read his work first-hand), science is the development and refinement of theories that produce falsifiable claims. That already disqualifies astrology, and we could certainly add more criteria. But I don't think "shown to be correct" should be one because it's impossible in general, which is what inspired the falsifiability criterion in the first place.