View Single Post
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 21-July-2008, 05:48 PM
Nereid Nereid is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 10,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by geonuc View Post
What's the question here? Whether it's useful or appropriate for scientists to disprove (falsify) a hypothesis without putting forward or pointing out the existence of a better hypothesis?
It's a general question: what - in your opinion - is the role of 'falsification' in modern science?

lomiller1, for example, has pointed out that it has merit as a criterion for deciding whether a hypothesis is within the scope of science or not (if the hypothesis is not, even potentially, falsifiable, then it can't be science).

korjik pointed out that a theory being falsified by a single experimental result (even if independently verified) doesn't mean that theory is necessarily abandoned; he also highlighted a very interesting aspect: domain of applicability (Newtonian gravity is just fine for a wide range of circumstances and applications, for example, despite its being comprehensively falsified in other domains).
Reply With Quote