7 ms·
The theory that it should be falsifiable in order to be valid, is not falsifiable.
by wissler 13y ago
The theory that it should be falsifiable in order to be valid, is not falsifiable.
- logical42 13y agoPerhaps it's not a theory. Perhaps it's an axiom.
- maggit 13y agoI'd say it's a paradigm. For whatever that's worth ;)
- vog 13y agoWhat your call "theory that it should be falsifiable" is in fact the very base of science. And this principle (among others) served us quite well for the last few hundred years, leading to progress, understanding, knowledge, inventions and innovations. Of course you can apply lower standards, such as "having some good-sounding arguments is all you nedd", but then the results become quickly worse.
- wissler 13y agoJust because you are told that something is the "base of science", doesn't make it the base of science. Also, read Newton's Rules of reasoning for a better example of a philosophy that's successfully been at the base of science.
- vog 13y agoI was referring to Richard Feyman (not Newton, but still a great influential physicist). Unfortunately, I can't reproduce his exact words from my mind.
- pessimizer 13y agoThe discussion of validity when replying to someone referring to effectiveness is deceptive.
- wissler 13y agoTheories are concerned with truth. That true theories are also effective is a side-effect. I.e., you are a very confused person.
- pessimizer 13y agoThe comment that you were replying to was about effectiveness. You replied with an intentional equivocation between effectiveness and validity. i.e. neither of us are confused, but you are being dishonest.
- wissler 13y agoAs I just pointed out, whether a theory is effective or not is irrelevant, the question is whether it is true or not. So I reinterpreted the original point so it actually made sense, and rightly so. You are not only confused about that, but you're also incredibly arrogant (in that you think you discern dishonest motives with such sparse evidence).
- diminoten 13y agoA scientific theory can never be true. It can only stand as "not disproven".
- wissler 13y agoNonsense. Barring semantic games played by fools, we know the Earth orbits the Sun, not the other way around. We know that matter is composed of atoms. Etc.
- diminoten 13y agoThose would not be theories, those would be observations. Theories attempt to explain why things happen as they do, observations are statements that something has or has not happened. Gravity is an observation. Let go of an object, it travels towards the surface of the planet (usually). Gravitational theory attempts to explain why gravity happens. Evolution is an observation. Over time, random variance occurs in living things, and when these variances are beneficial to the life of the living thing, the variance tends to spread through the species over time (give or take). Evolutionary theory is an attempt at explaining how and why this occurs. Obama has changed his position on issues X, Y, and Z. are observations. That he has done this because he's an evil, blood-sucking politician who says anything to get approval is an attempt at explaining why Obama has changed his positions over time.
- diminoten 13y agoIt's not a theory, it's part of the successfully utilized scientific method. If you'd like the credentials for the scientific method as used over the past 150+ years, let me know. Might even be a fun article to write.