[MOD NOTE: This thread was created by splitting the posts discussing Sparky56's contentions re Popper and falsification(ism), from the How open-minded in mainstream science? thread.
While I have tried to move only the relevant posts, there are a few which I may have missed, and a few which should perhaps not have been moved.]Utter drivel. The point is that for a theory to be scientific (testable), then it must be falsifiable. The three terms are synonymous, for the umpteenth time.Originally Posted by Van Rijn
Of course, once a theory has been falsified it is no longer valid, but this not a reformulation ... it is a statement of the obvious.
No, it's very basic. No theory should be considered invulnerable.Originally Posted by Van Rijn
But don't take my word for it. Popper's book, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, lays down his methodology in great detail. However, it is very technical. As an introduction I would recommend Brian MaGee's imaginatively titled 'Popper', Fontana/Collins, 1973. To quote from the book:
P29: "...Popper realized that no theory could be relied upon to provide the final truth."
P39: "Falsification in whole or part is the anticipated fate of any genuinely scientific theory. Nothing in science is permanently established."
P43: "...so a genuinely scientific theory places itself permanently at risk."
The philosophy known as Logical Positivism relied on facts rather than theories. Popper effectively destroyed it.
The other day I found an old thread about this topic by someone called Superdragon, but I can't find it now. He demonstrated far more patience than I am prepared to lavish.