BidenPresident
Verified User
Something is wrong with your brain. You can make some valid comments about science. But then you deteriorate into writing nonsensical fallacy crap.
Terrible news for the Creation Science museum (and Republicans)
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
Something is wrong with your brain. You can make some valid comments about science. But then you deteriorate into writing nonsensical fallacy crap.
Into the Night
Verified User
Into the Night
Verified User
Psychoquackery. Denial of logic. No argument presented.
BidenPresident
Verified User
He presented the argument in 1934. You know a lot less than you believe. Cut the crap.
BidenPresident
Verified User
Now you're just going to write gibberish.
Biden for prez is right.
You read a Wikipedia article on Karl Popper five years ago, and now treat him like a God.
Karl Popper is only one type of insight into the philosophy of science and nature of scientific knowlege.
Popper is not a God and there is no universal consensus that he had the best approach to articulating the explanatory power of a scientific theory.
I covered this ground already:
Philosophy of science
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?163038-Philosophy-of-science&p=4276989#post4276989
BidenPresident
Verified User
"Reference to the scientific method has also often been used to argue for the scientific nature or special status of a particular activity. Philosophical positions that argue for a simple and unique scientific method as a criterion of demarcation, such as Popperian falsification,"
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/#PopFal
Popper had a legitimate idea but it is not the only criterion.
Further: "the recent movement in philosophy of science toward a greater attention to practice: to what scientists actually do. This “turn to practice” can be seen as the latest form of studies of methods in science, insofar as it represents an attempt at understanding scientific activity, but through accounts that are neither meant to be universal and unified, nor singular and narrowly descriptive."
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
that's another stupid question......
Ah it's a habit then.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
apparently......I wasn't sure if you intended it to be a stupid question or if it just happened.......
I wonder if you always told your teachers they asked stupid questions.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
only if they deserved it.......
Into the Night
Verified User
Irrelevant. Age does not affect a philosophical argument.
Into the Night
Verified User
Denial of logic. Inversion fallacy. No argument presented.
Into the Night
Verified User
What does this have to do with the phase of the moon?
No. I read Popper's philosophies. The definition of science he made is sound, but overly complex. It has been simplified since then.
Presentism fallacy. You are free to try to define 'science' in a way that is it not 'religion'.
Never said Popper was God. There does not need to be consensus. You are simply discarding his argument. Argument of the stone fallacy.
No, you quoted an even older philosopher. Your own argument puts you in paradox.
This is from an older philosopher, parts of it reaching back to ancient Greece. The problem with this definition is that you define a religion with it as well. Indeed, it was once used to try to make God science.
I have already covered this as well.
Into the Night
Verified User
Feel free to present your philosophical argument and attempt to define 'science' that differs from 'religion'.
Also feel free to provide an example of science that does not meet the test of falsifiability.
Also feel free to describe how a theory can be proven True.
Also feel free to describe how any proof of any kind can occur in an open functional system.
A simplified version of Popper's philosophy meets all of these. You can't just discard it out of hand.
I doubt you even knew who Karl Popper was, until I wrote about him several months ago.
It's obvious you read about falsifiablility on some blog, and have made a message board career out of assuming Pipper's criteria of demarcation is the one and only definition of science.
You are not informed enough to know that there is no consensus Popper's criteria of demarcation is the only definition of science. Even though you have acted like it is.
There are some serious problems with Poppers criteria of demarcation:
Science is not cheap. Particle accelerators and radio telescopes cost a fortune. It is not clear we should throw a theory out the instant experimental results point to the null hypothesis.
Science would find it hard to progress if we did that.
It is not clear that highly confirmed results are in any way inferior to falsification. Are we really supposed to accept the idea that being highly confirmed and having wide explanatory power are not virtues of a scientific theory?
I think not.
There is plenty of debate on what counts as a good scientific explanation, and whether inference by corroboration, or straightforward falsification leads to superior scientific practice. Karl Popper is not a God who had the final say on scientific knowlege.
Into the Night
Verified User
Believe what you want. I knew about Popper's philosophies for many years.
Nope. Falsifiability has a meaning. I've already described what it is and why. Argument of the stone fallacy.
At this point it is the only one that makes any kind of sense. You are free to present your own philosophy and define science. Go ahead.
None needed.
Never did.
None.
Science has no cost.
Particle accelerators and radio telescopes are not required for science.
Yes it is. The theory is falsified. It is destroyed.
It progresses just fine.
Religion is not science. Only religion uses supporting evidence.
Yes. I have already explained why.
Argument of the stone fallacy. Feel free to define science using your philosophy. It must separate it from religion. It must support all the current theories of science that exist.
All theories are explanatory arguments, whether scientific or otherwise.
Science isn't a practice. Science does not use supporting evidence. Only religions do that.
Never said he was. Fixation.
Argument of the stone fallacy.
Falsifiability is a thing, yes. That is why many theories are destroyed.
The question is why are we discussing that?
The question is why are we discussing that?
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Because it’s impossible to falsify abiogenesis for all practical purposes. Into is right that it’s like a religious doctrine in that sense.