Quote:
Originally Posted by Disinfo Agent
Well said, Geonuc.
This thread was obviously a straw man designed to discredit Popper from the get go. A better question than whether falsificationism matters in science -- of course it does; just watch any discussion between mainstream scientists and ATMers or CTers -- is why are many scientists grossed out by the thought that a philosopher may have had something valid to say about science? It's because they see it as an unacceptable intrusion into their "turf".
It's no more than a corporatist kneejerk response.
|
Well, to the extent that what this thread was "
designed" to do, I guess the OP may be in close to the best position to say, right? Oh, and
dgruss23 too.
Of course, you dear reader are perfectly entitled to form your own opinions of what the designer intended, based on whatever you wish to take into consideration (or not) ...
But since you've joined, may I ask you a question?
Indeed, may I ask this question (again) of all readers who think the Popperian (naive) falsificationism perspective has traction, within 20th century physics and astrophysics.
Between the time when the 'missing energy' of certain beta decays was discovered and 1957, was the law of conservation of energy falsified?
OK, I lied; more than one question.
During 1957, did the law of conservation of energy go from being falsified to unfalsified?
Also, what was falsified, by Davis' solar neutrino experiments (and others') from 1964 to 2001?