Joined: June 2004
|Quote (Richardthughes @ April 11 2007,11:06)|
|Slpage: I'm a big Popper fan, because 'no black swans', empirical falsification, makes science perpetually open, hungry, subject to revision. Compare that to scripture. We never claim to be right, only to use the best current explanation given the data and the models fit. We are prepared to be wring and welcome it, because in revision comes greater understanding.|
Rich - I agree with the 'spirit' of the falsification criterion, but a direct application of it is unrealistic. That is, how often do scientists come up with an idea and say to themselves, "Hmmm... Now how can I go about falsifying this?"
If it is not falsified, is it not science (this is a little claim of creationists on occasion - because ToE has not been falsified, it isnot scientific...)? If it is falsified, then what?
A more realistic application - and what, as best I can tell, actually happens - is that any new observations/experiments done with regard to a new (or ol) hypothesis/theory are de facto attempts at falisification. That is, scientist X sets out to 'test' an idea in the hopes that the results will be supportive. It seems to be human nature.
If the test ends up not comporting with the idea, then one would hope that scientist X reformulates his/her idea and tries again.
I totally agree that any iteration of this is anathema to creationists, but that wasn't my point. My point is that the 'biggie' philosophers of science took things to an illogical extreme in many cases, and so have been over-relied upon in many cases.