4 ms·
Even the author calls it "naive falsificationism". That's the strawman. The author is right that it's a crude version of falsificationism, but I doubt that most
by leereeves 8y ago
Even the author calls it "naive falsificationism". That's the strawman. The author is right that it's a crude version of falsificationism, but I doubt that most people believe it.
I suspect most people believe the version that the author calls reasonable: first confirm the experiment and its conclusions before questioning a proven theory.
- dang 8y agoIn that case you and the author have an empirical disagreement about how many people believe which version. Given how often "naive falsificationism" shows up in internet comments, I wouldn't bet against the author. But isn't it moot anyhow? He states up front that not everyone believes this, but those who do are the ones he's writing for. That's not a straw man argument.
- leereeves 8y ago"Naive falsificationism" shows up in Internet comments from the kind of people who think vaccines cause autism or global warming is a hoax, and cling to a single isolated result as "proof". Even on the Internet they aren't a majority. If the author merely wants to argue against that kind of thinking, that's fine, but given the extensive discussion of Karl Popper and physicists, I don't think that's the author's intent.