4 ms·
Falsifiability is a requirement for any scientific hypothesis. I don’t know about pseudoscience but a non-falsifiable hypothesis is not science.
by janalsncm 2y ago
Falsifiability is a requirement for any scientific hypothesis. I don’t know about pseudoscience but a non-falsifiable hypothesis is not science.
- robwwilliams 2y agoAnd what has NOT been falsified, do you then consider that solid science, or just not yet falsified?
- janalsncm 2y agoIf it is falsifiable but not falsified, that’s considered a credit to the hypothesis. The strongest of our scientific theories have been tested thousands of times but not falsified.
- naasking 2y agoDebatable: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/#Fals https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/#Fals Popper even thought evolution by natural selection was not falsifiable.
- naasking 2y agoWhat's interesting was not that he changed his mind, but that he adjusted his own understanding of falsification to accomodate new data rather than letting it falsify his framework. If you keep reading, you that this led to Kuhn's criticism of Popper's approach, and his motion of scientific revolutions, which we see actually being practiced: particle dark matter has technically been falsified many times, but we didn't throw it out but instead revised it to accomodate new data. It is only when these sorts of revisions become less plausible compared to a totally different approach that science meaningfully progresses.
- janalsncm 2y agoThe next paragraph mentions that he retracted this statement the next year.
- mistermann 2y agoHow does science conclusively resolve "is"? It seems to be a function of human opinion based on this.
- mistermann 2y agoI wonder if Richard Feynman's mind behaved like this.