[lit-ideas] Re: Ok, so I already broke the three-only-a-day rule
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 06:39:04 +0000 (GMT)
I was about to recommend this, because it is fairly sound so far, however:-
"Popper's falsificationism can be questioned logically, by asking about
statements such as "There are black holes", which cannot be falsified by any
possible observation yet seem to be scientifically legitimate claims."
Ans:- yes [I mean 'no'] but no but, that's why they are not scientific claims
(i.e. claims disprovable by observation). Get a grip. They are not
scientifically legitimate claims. No observation can _disprove_ them. They are
not, therefore, _falsifiable_. An observation that is consistent with them
[i.e. "At point x in space time y there was black hole"] is a scientific
statement, _because_ it is _falsifiable_ [after all, at that point in space and
time the "black hole", logically, may not have existed; falsifiability being an
essentially _logical_ concept]. But the generic claim that "black holes exist"
is _not_ falsifiable - and hence no more "scientific" than the claim that there
exists a huge rotating turd that governs everything that happens (including the
moronic thoughts of those who do not understand this).
Look at Wipipedia on Popper:
And where are you Wittgns.?
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
