3 ms·
> It's not falsifiable. Neither is Popper's Falsification Theory. The only thing that pointing this out demonstrates is that a theory does not fit under Popper
by PheonixPharts 3y ago
> It's not falsifiable.
Neither is Popper's Falsification Theory. The only thing that pointing this out demonstrates is that a theory does not fit under Popper's specific definition of normative science... which in the philosophy of science itself is not held in particularly high regard.
So what you're basically pointing out is that, according to one very specific philosopher of science, Freud is more philosophy than he is normative science. Which is something that I think virtually all advocates of Freud would uncontroversially agree with.
- throw310822 3y ago> Neither is Popper's Falsification Theory. Sounds perfectly falsifiable to me: you just need to show a well accepted scientific theory that cannot be falsified even in principle. However, Popper's seems more a principle or a criterion than a theory. By which I mean, you're free to refuse it and incorporate any amount of non-falsifiable statements in your "science". I just suspect it won't have much predictive power.
- tnecniv 3y agoWhat makes his theory non-falsifiable?