Quote:
Originally Posted by geonuc
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.  |
Rocks are good, how long did it take for it to be accepted that rocks fall from space? In the old days the "scientists" (the term did not exist then) generally tended to be men of independent means and they could work on whatever idea struck their fancy. Now, mainstream ideas are the path to at least a living. I would prefer a modified version of
Nereid's term and say "currently ruled out" for an idea that is at the edge of our knowledge that doesn't fit.