4 ms·

Did anyone ever say it did?

n4r9 8y ago
It's more about whether this aspect is properly considered. Some physicist think building bigger particle accelerators is good simply because it can falsify more models. However the the quality of those models must also be taken into account.
- kwhitefoot 8y ago
  Then they should have led with that instead of the general point about falsifiability. When writing for an audience that has limited attention to give always put the executive summary first.
  - n4r9 8y ago
    I think it's fine. In the second line it says > A major reason we see so many wrong predictions in the foundations of physics – and see those make headlines – is that both scientists and science writers take falsifiability to be a sufficient criterion for good science. Personally the line that caught my eye straight away was the one on it's own that said > Why does it matter? after which comes the stuff about bigger accelerators.
claudiawerner 8y ago
Yes. Karl Popper's theory (from which we get falsifiability in the first place) declared falsifiability to be the necessary and sufficient condition for something to be scientific. He was obviously wrong on this point (plenty of good science doesn't start from a falsifiable hypothesis, and plenty of pseudo-science is falsifiable).
- losvedir 8y ago
  > Karl Popper's theory (from which we get falsifiability in the first place) declared falsifiability to be the necessary and sufficient condition for something to be scientific. According to the article that's not the case. It says: > But falsifiability alone is not sufficient to make a prediction scientific. (And, no, Popper never said so.) Looking around at quotes of his, I see that he maintains falsifiability is necessary, but nothing that indicates he thinks its sufficient. Do you have a source by any chance? > He was obviously wrong on this point (plenty of good science doesn't start from a falsifiable hypothesis, and plenty of pseudo-science is falsifiable). Eh, I'm not sure I'd say he was obviously wrong. I still think that good science has to be falsifiable. What's a good counterexample? Or are you drawing a distinction between "is falsifiable" and "starts from a falsifiable hypothesis"?
  - n4r9 8y ago
    I was intrigued by this also. According to https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/ : > However, in what seems to be his last statement of his position, Popper declared that falsifiability is a both necessary and a sufficient criterion. “A sentence (or a theory) is empirical-scientific if and only if it is falsifiable.” Furthermore, he emphasized that the falsifiability referred to here “only has to do with the logical structure of sentences and classes of sentences” (Popper [1989] 1994, 82). The reference given is: “Falsifizierbarkeit, zwei Bedeutungen von”, pp. 82–86 in Helmut Seiffert and Gerard Radnitzky, Handlexikon zur Wissenschaftstheorie, 2nd edition München:Ehrenwirth GmbH Verlag.
    - losvedir 8y ago
      Thanks!
  - claudiawerner 8y ago
    >What's a good counterexample? The SEP article linked by the sibling comment outlines astrology as an example of bad science and a review of articles one year in Nature is good science being rejected by Popper's criterion. It's rather absurd (and a comment to how far HN reads into things) that my comment is at -1 votes.

n4r9 8y ago

It's more about whether this aspect is properly considered. Some physicist think building bigger particle accelerators is good simply because it can falsify more models. However the the quality of those models must also be taken into account.

kwhitefoot 8y ago
Then they should have led with that instead of the general point about falsifiability. When writing for an audience that has limited attention to give always put the executive summary first.
- n4r9 8y ago
  I think it's fine. In the second line it says > A major reason we see so many wrong predictions in the foundations of physics – and see those make headlines – is that both scientists and science writers take falsifiability to be a sufficient criterion for good science. Personally the line that caught my eye straight away was the one on it's own that said > Why does it matter? after which comes the stuff about bigger accelerators.

claudiawerner 8y ago

Yes. Karl Popper's theory (from which we get falsifiability in the first place) declared falsifiability to be the necessary and sufficient condition for something to be scientific. He was obviously wrong on this point (plenty of good science doesn't start from a falsifiable hypothesis, and plenty of pseudo-science is falsifiable).

losvedir 8y ago
> Karl Popper's theory (from which we get falsifiability in the first place) declared falsifiability to be the necessary and sufficient condition for something to be scientific. According to the article that's not the case. It says: > But falsifiability alone is not sufficient to make a prediction scientific. (And, no, Popper never said so.) Looking around at quotes of his, I see that he maintains falsifiability is necessary, but nothing that indicates he thinks its sufficient. Do you have a source by any chance? > He was obviously wrong on this point (plenty of good science doesn't start from a falsifiable hypothesis, and plenty of pseudo-science is falsifiable). Eh, I'm not sure I'd say he was obviously wrong. I still think that good science has to be falsifiable. What's a good counterexample? Or are you drawing a distinction between "is falsifiable" and "starts from a falsifiable hypothesis"?
- n4r9 8y ago
  I was intrigued by this also. According to https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/ : > However, in what seems to be his last statement of his position, Popper declared that falsifiability is a both necessary and a sufficient criterion. “A sentence (or a theory) is empirical-scientific if and only if it is falsifiable.” Furthermore, he emphasized that the falsifiability referred to here “only has to do with the logical structure of sentences and classes of sentences” (Popper [1989] 1994, 82). The reference given is: “Falsifizierbarkeit, zwei Bedeutungen von”, pp. 82–86 in Helmut Seiffert and Gerard Radnitzky, Handlexikon zur Wissenschaftstheorie, 2nd edition München:Ehrenwirth GmbH Verlag.
  - losvedir 8y ago
    Thanks!
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  >What's a good counterexample? The SEP article linked by the sibling comment outlines astrology as an example of bad science and a review of articles one year in Nature is good science being rejected by Popper's criterion. It's rather absurd (and a comment to how far HN reads into things) that my comment is at -1 votes.