3 ms·
If you take a very narrow view of falsification, then evolution is unfalsifiable too, and therefore not science (this is actually a common argument made by anti
by _delirium 13y ago
If you take a very narrow view of falsification, then evolution is unfalsifiable too, and therefore not science (this is actually a common argument made by anti-evolution people).
- jeltz 13y agoThat is untrue since evolution has indeed been studied in falsifiable experiments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution On the other hand studying how exactly the current specieses evolved is more like history.
- _delirium 13y agoThere are certainly specific experiments that have been carried out w.r.t. mechanisms (also true with climate science, fwiw). It's more the overall "big" conclusions that are a bit difficult to replicate in a laboratory, e.g. "the earth is warming as a result of human-caused greenhouse-gas emissions" and "humans descended from other animals through a process of evolution driven by natural selection".
- jeltz 13y agoAny examples of such experiments for climate science? Other than actually predicting climate change and then waiting 30 years I have trouble imagining falsifiable experiments. For evolution you can isolate a couple of populations with short generations in the lab and study them.
- neutronicus 13y agoI agree with that argument. It's history. If not for the whole religion dust-up we'd probably call it natural history.