4 ms·
> One could argue that science is about falsifying hypothesis - and terby narrowing in on not just if something works, but how. Testing the "if" is science - b
by e12e 7y ago
> One could argue that science is about falsifying hypothesis - and terby narrowing in on not just if something works, but how.
Testing the "if" is science - but difficult without a framework helping understand "how". Testing only if, in a vacuum, isn't enough - and it is a tool on the path to understanding "how". This allows such things as using statistical models (if one has an idea of distribution, for example) to help refine the "if" tests, and narrow down exactly what your "if" experiment tested.
I don't think you can have science without both, and I think defining a body of theory is the more important aspect.
- klodolph 7y agoHonestly there is so much that I disagree with in this comment that I can't write a short reply. Sorry. I get in discussions about philosophy of science all the time because I am passionate about it. But I am very disappointed because it turns out that other people who are passionate about science and the philosophy of science haven't really done the reading. This discussion is a prime example. It makes me feel like nothing more than a conduit, copying arguments out of old books and pasting them on the internet.
- e12e 7y agoIt's been a while since I had philosophy and scientific theory, I'm afraid.