Changes

In his seminal work, ''The Logic of Scientific Discovery,'' Karl Popper repudiated induction, and proposed the bright line of [[Falsifiable|falsifiability]] as a demarcation between science and non-science.  In order to be scientific, a theory must be testable, and the results of the testing must either corroborate the theory, or falsify it.  A proposed theory is falsifiable, if it is conceivable to conduct an experiment that would disprove the theory.  For example, [[Isaac Newton]]'s [[Gravitation#Newtonian gravitation|law of gravity]] is a valid scientific theory because it is falsifiable; that is, the law of gravity is experimentally testable, and a measurement taken that violates Newton's law would falsify it, while a measurement that substantiates the theory would corroborate it, but importantly, would not "prove" it.

In his seminal work, ''The Logic of Scientific Discovery,'' Karl Popper repudiated induction, and proposed the bright line of [[Falsifiable|falsifiability]] as a demarcation between science and non-science.  In order to be scientific, a theory must be testable, and the results of the testing must either corroborate the theory, or falsify it.  A proposed theory is falsifiable, if it is conceivable to conduct an experiment that would disprove the theory.  For example, [[Isaac Newton]]'s [[Gravitation#Newtonian gravitation|law of gravity]] is a valid scientific theory because it is falsifiable; that is, the law of gravity is experimentally testable, and a measurement taken that violates Newton's law would falsify it, while a measurement that substantiates the theory would corroborate it, but importantly, would not "prove" it.

While chemistry, Newtonian physics, and many other fields belong to science, metaphysics and pseudoscience are not scientific.  

While chemistry, Newtonian physics and many other fields belong to science, metaphysics and pseudoscience are not scientific.  

Karl Popper wrote that Darwinism is "not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme— a possible framework for testable scientific theories."<ref name=StephenEJones>https://web.archive.org/web/20100419000236/http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref> Leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, Michael Ruse declared with regard to Popper's statement and [[Falsifiability of evolution|the actions he took after making that statement]]: "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable."<ref name=StephenEJones/> Popper also criticized [[Sigmund Freud]] for being unscientific.

Karl Popper wrote that Darwinism is "not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme— a possible framework for testable scientific theories."<ref name=StephenEJones>https://web.archive.org/web/20100419000236/http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref> Leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, Michael Ruse declared with regard to Popper's statement and [[Falsifiability of evolution|the actions he took after making that statement]]: "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable."<ref name=StephenEJones/> Popper also criticized [[Sigmund Freud]] for being unscientific.