68
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 3:
Line 3: + + + +
no edit summary
Toffeeman : I have expanded the para about falsifiability to make it clear that Popper is talking about universal laws ("Black holes exist" is an existential statement and thus "doesn't count"). I have also deleted the sentence about application of the falsifiablilty criteria to ethics. I would have ignored it if there was a citation (I haven't read everything the man said - so he could have said it) but it is so far away from my understanding of Popper's work that I would need a citation to be convinced.
Toffeeman : I have expanded the para about falsifiability to make it clear that Popper is talking about universal laws ("Black holes exist" is an existential statement and thus "doesn't count"). I have also deleted the sentence about application of the falsifiablilty criteria to ethics. I would have ignored it if there was a citation (I haven't read everything the man said - so he could have said it) but it is so far away from my understanding of Popper's work that I would need a citation to be convinced.
==Falsification vs. Falsificationism==
I'm concerned with the content of this page. Popper may be remembered commonly as a proponent of falsification, which he of course was, but his work on the philosophy of science was mostly about falsificationism; that is, that empirical statements are <i>never</i> confirmed, merely disconfirmed, and that theory choice and scientific practice can be operated in a strictly rational way. The stuff about the swans seems like a pretty poor rephrasing of Hempel's paradox. [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 12:40, 7 May 2007 (EDT)