From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon philosophy of science.svg

This Philosophy of science related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Archives for this talk page: , (new)

The falsifiability criterion is itself unfalsifiable[edit]

Problem?Kittycat (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

the problem is your inability to accept that you lost the argument above. starting a new section doesn't mean it never happened. Flannan Isle (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Except no, I already had this on my mind too. This is a totally separate criticism.Kittycat (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
It's even more boring. Go back to arguing about how we can't prove we aren't in a computer simulation. StickySock (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
And I haven't "lost" anything. I already forced the opposition to concede that "disprove" means to "show overwhelming evidence demonstrating the falsity of", not "demonstrate absolute certainty of the falsity of" like in math. Only overwhelming evidence without absolute certainty still leaves the possibility that what you disproved is actually true.Kittycat (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
You are still boring the fuck out of us. StickySock (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah? Then how about just don't respond. No wonder most people think of this site as a joke.Kittycat (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Did you read the comic? Tell me what it was about. StickySock (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Is it falsifiable? No? It still may not be wrong...yes there are important examples[edit]

The philosophy of science, presumably not complete bullshit, everywhere impinges upon scientific knowledge. Theoretical physics is continuously harried by speculations and theoretical constructs not the least bit falsifiable. String theory, in particular, is one of the most popular modern areas of research among mathematical virtuosos of science. The simple idea of multiple universes is unfalsifiable, and yet it is a beautiful, philosophical, yet scientific idea. Ariel31459 (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 I think we have an article critiquing that. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Planetary motion[edit]

How does falsifiabilty apply to Kepler and Newton's theories of planetary motion? In order to falsify them, presumably you would have to wait for the discovery of a new planet and see if it confirmed to their laws. I am not sure if Kepler claimed that any new planet would conform to his 3 laws of planetary motion. It was at least implicit in Newton's law of gravity that any new planet would have to conform to these laws, but this only happened with the discovery of Uranus some years later. I realise the discover of some minor planets and asteroids might complicate matters. PatGallacher (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

"Put simply, if a theory cannot be falsified, there is no point in even examining the evidence."[edit]

Is this the consensus here? I'm not sure I agree with this as a reduction, and I think there's a better way to phrase it. Maybe one which highlights the fact that unfalsifiability is unscientific, rather than examination being pointless? "Put simply, if science cannot falsify a hypothesis, it's probably not much of a hypothesis" maybe? I dunno. Monochroma (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The creationism sections is rubbish[edit]

It should just be a small note about creationism that links to the actual article:

Which does a much better job. Perhaps list more examples, even, to strengthen the article as a whole.

The most egregious part of this section is right in the introduction about being “unable to go back in time and test historic events???” which would apply to the entire field of history (and many events we are pretty sure did happen despite having less evidence).

After that it’s at least decent, if not rambling and full of conjecture itself, but ultimately it takes two paragraphs and a load of weird claims to say “ Only an observation proving that God does not exist would undermine the theory [of creationism]” Which, no shit. Considering Creationism, at its base form, is just the idea that god exists. It’d be nice to see why god can’t be proven rather than why aspects of theology are nonsensical but the section doesn’t actually tackle that despite its name. — Unsigned, by: Utter / talk / contribs

I've updated it. Thanks. Bongolian (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Excellent work! Better than I could’ve doneUtter (talk) 05:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)