3 ms·

> Karl Popper's theory (from which we get falsifiability in the first place) declared falsifiability to be the necessary and sufficient condition for something

> 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

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.