553
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 43:
Line 43: +
→Popper
::::::: If you want an expert opinion on quantum chromodynamics, I wouldn't pay much attention to the philosophers. If the question is some scientific claim related to Freudian theory, such as whether the symbolic interpretation of dreams can predict behavior, then that is not really a question that philosophy answers. But Popper is being used her for a question of philosophy, not the merits of any scientific ideas. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:14, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::: If you want an expert opinion on quantum chromodynamics, I wouldn't pay much attention to the philosophers. If the question is some scientific claim related to Freudian theory, such as whether the symbolic interpretation of dreams can predict behavior, then that is not really a question that philosophy answers. But Popper is being used her for a question of philosophy, not the merits of any scientific ideas. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:14, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Popper is being used here to pass judgment on whether or not something (actually a number of somethings) is sciencntific. Not a question of philosophy. A question of philosophy would be “is falsifiability a necessary feature of a scientific theory? or “What is falsifiability?” (neither of which are settled questions). You could write, “Popper said falsifiability is a necessary feature of science, and under his definition Freud’s theories were not falsifiable” – but that would be about Popper not Freud. To say X is unscientific as evidenced by Popper’s claims is to say that Popper is a good source for what is science, not what some philosophers believe science to be. He is being used here to make a claim about science not about philosophy. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:37, 28 April 2007 (EDT)