Hacker Read

twblalock | karma 18047 | avg karma 4.2 · 2016-07-05 03:10:44+00:00

Because many philosophers of science reject Popper's views as unrepresentative of the way science is done by real people in the real world. The Wikipedia page for falsifiability enumerates some of these criticisms.

mirimir | karma 16819 | avg karma 1.63 · 2016-07-05 03:34:22+00:00

Well, then those real people aren't doing science.

twblalock | karma 18047 | avg karma 4.2 · 2016-07-05 03:46:37+00:00

This is the No True Scotsman fallacy, and a rather obvious example of it.

mirimir | karma 16819 | avg karma 1.63 · 2016-07-05 03:52:39+00:00

OK, so what do you consider to be science with hypotheses that can't be falsified?

Edit: Much cosmology and some theoretical physics seem pretty iffy to me, but at least there's the possibility of falsifiable hypotheses.

reply

alayne | karma 1645 | avg karma 2.8 · 2016-07-05 04:01:48

http://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/socialresearch/f...

mirimir | karma 16819 | avg karma 1.63 · 2016-07-05 04:09:20

Interesting, but it doesn't mention Kuhn.

Also, there's seems to be some attachment to the idea that truth can be proven.

reply