Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
5 Comments
eric3579says...*promote
siftbotsays...Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Thursday, March 31st, 2016 2:53am PDT - promote requested by eric3579.
Paybacksays...I need to read some Popper. Sounds like someone with my mindset...
Chairman_woosays...Speaking as a philosophy graduate, Karl is basically my to go guy for philosophy of science.
He cut away of a lot of nonsense in the subject by thoroughly refuting the idea of inductivism, which is unfortunately how most non-scientists seem to think of scientific "truth".
Science can't make true statements, it can only refute untrue statements.
This is the only way for empiricism to get around the problem of induction. (& even then it just avoids the problem rather than solving it)
We don't know the sun will rise tomorrow, but we can attempt to refute theories that suggest that it won't.
Thus any theory which is not falsifiable is not truly scientific.
(I realise I'm restating some of the above, but dammit that expensive university education has to be useful for something!)
I need to read some Popper. Sounds like someone with my mindset...
FamelJhonesays...[author flagged as a spammer - redacted]
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.