(Falsificationism is the theory that scientists abandon a theory when they find evidence against it. This essentially never happens.)
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I picked those as extremes… they are pseudosciences, I think. But every genuine scientific theory also has numerous observations against it.
-
The work of “normal science” is sorting out why those observations don’t count, or making small adjustments to the theory to cover them.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Right. You see this every day in every bio lab. The data don’t fit the theory; 99.99% of the time it’s because you screwed up, not because >
-
you’ve discovered an exception to the theory.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
… & also ones that are known not to apply to some classes of phenomena that it seems they should. Maybe later that can be worked out, or not
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I don't think that's falsificationism.. Falsificationism is a good practice: it's good for a scientific theory to make predictions. However,
-
if the predictions prove to be false, it's not obvious what should be done. That's up to the community of scientists https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falsifiability …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
is/ought
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This is a line some Christian Philosophers of Science take.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.