Quote:
Originally Posted by geonuc
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.
|
I agree, and I don't think this is the aspect of Popper's thinking that is controversial. An indispensable quality of science is that it must be a kind of dialog with nature, and falsifiability (writ large) is the way nature "talks back". Without that, the dialog is just in our minds, a form of pure reason. To the extent that Popper is saying that, I feel most scientists would agree.