Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
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).
|
The thread may be 'done', but I'm a bit slow on the uptake. Not that I have anything profound to add to the commentary already presented.
But it seems my original confusion as to the topic might have been justified. Y'all are talking about two things: 1) does a hypothesis/statement/whatever have to falsifiable to be within the realm of science (Popper's assertion) and 2) what is the role and effect of falsification.
As to 1), I think Popper is correct. If a statement is not falsifiable, it's not scientific. That doesn't mean it is useless or beneath discussion, just that maybe it should be handed to the philosophy department.
2): I'll subscribe to
Ken G's initial post.
Thanks for your patience. I'll go back to rocks now.
