Terrible news for the Creation Science museum (and Republicans)

[AProudLefty]

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]

I wonder if you always told your teachers they asked stupid questions.

only if they deserved it.......

[Into the Night]

He presented the argument in 1934. You know a lot less than you believe. Cut the crap.

Irrelevant. Age does not affect a philosophical argument.

[Into the Night]

Now you're just going to write gibberish.

Denial of logic. Inversion fallacy. No argument presented.

[Into the Night]

Biden for prez is right.

What does this have to do with the phase of the moon?

You read a Wikipedia article on Karl Popper five years ago, and now treat him like a God.

No. I read Popper's philosophies. The definition of science he made is sound, but overly complex. It has been simplified since then.

Karl Popper is only one type of insight into the philosophy of science and nature of scientific knowlege.

Presentism fallacy. You are free to try to define 'science' in a way that is it not 'religion'.

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.

Never said Popper was God. There does not need to be consensus. You are simply discarding his argument. Argument of the stone fallacy.

I covered this ground already:

No, you quoted an even older philosopher. Your own argument puts you in paradox.

Philosophy of science
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...89#post4276989

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]

"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/s...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."

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.

[Cypress]

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.

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]

I doubt you even knew who Karl Popper was, until I wrote about him several months ago.

Believe what you want. I knew about Popper's philosophies for many years.

It's obvious you read about falsifiablility on some blog,

Nope. Falsifiability has a meaning. I've already described what it is and why. Argument of the stone fallacy.

and have made a message board career out of assuming Pipper's criteria of demarcation is the one and only definition of science.

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.

You are not informed enough to know that there is no consensus Popper's criteria of demarcation is the only definition of science.

None needed.

Even though you have acted like it is.

Never did.

There are some serious problems with Poppers criteria of demarcation:

None.

Science is not cheap.

Science has no cost.

Particle accelerators and radio telescopes cost a fortune.

Particle accelerators and radio telescopes are not required for science.

It is not clear we should throw a theory out the instant experimental results point to the null hypothesis.

Yes it is. The theory is falsified. It is destroyed.

Science would find it hard to progress if we did[ that.

It progresses just fine.

It is not clear that highly confirmed results are in any way inferior to falsification.

Religion is not science. Only religion uses supporting evidence.

Are we really supposed to accept the idea that being highly confirmed and having wide explanatory power are not virtues of a scientific theory?

Yes. I have already explained why.

I think not.

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.

There is plenty of debate on what counts as a good scientific explanation,

All theories are explanatory arguments, whether scientific or otherwise.

and whether inference by corroboration, or straightforward falsification leads to superior scientific practice.

Science isn't a practice. Science does not use supporting evidence. Only religions do that.

Karl Popper is not a God

Never said he was. Fixation.

who had the final say on scientific knowlege.

Argument of the stone fallacy.

[AProudLefty]

Falsifiability is a thing, yes. That is why many theories are destroyed.

The question is why are we discussing that?

[Darth Omar]

Falsifiability is a thing, yes. That is why many theories are destroyed.

The question is why are we discussing that?

Because it’s impossible to falsify abiogenesis for all practical purposes. Into is right that it’s like a religious doctrine in that sense.

[AProudLefty]

Because it’s impossible to falsify abiogenesis for all practical purposes. He’s right that it’s like a religious doctrine in that sense.

How is it a religious doctrine?

Life has an origin, correct?

[Doc Dutch]

Falsifiability is a thing, yes. That is why many theories are destroyed.

The question is why are we discussing that?

Agreed. Why not apply both philosophies? If scientists are trying to crack a nut, why not use both inductivism and empirical falsification?

TBH, reading this made my eyes glaze over: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

I'm a user of tech, not an engineer. I admire scientists and all the work they do but most of it's too tedious for me to be an active participant. Once I wanted to be a test pilot, but unlike the days of "kick the tires and light the fire", it's mostly repetitive tests such as high speed taxi tests for six months. Application is a lot more fun than R&D.

[AProudLefty]

Agreed. Why not apply both philosophies? If scientists are trying to crack a nut, why not use both inductivism and empirical falsification?

TBH, reading this made my eyes glaze over: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

I'm a user of tech, not an engineer. I admire scientists and all the work they do but most of it's too tedious for me to be an active participant. Once I wanted to be a test pilot, but unlike the days of "kick the tires and light the fire", it's mostly repetitive tests such as high speed taxi tests for six months. Application is a lot more fun than R&D.

I disagree. R&D is more fun.

[Doc Dutch]

I disagree. R&D is more fun.

Sure playing with the finished product is fun, but how many years did it take engineers to design, test and build one of those? Tedious.

BTW, I still say it'd look better with a 40 watt Plasma rifle on each shoulder.

[AProudLefty]

Sure playing with the finished product is fun, but how many years did it take engineers to design, test and build one of those? Tedious.

Years and years of yuge houses with yuge backyards for kids.