Changes

805 bytes added ,  15:13, November 13, 2009
Popper's personal views are irrelevant; no one here says that Popper was a genius who was always right.
Line 159: Line 159:     
:::::::On Popper and relativity, Christoph von Mettenheim (http://elm.eeng.dcu.ie/~tkpw/tcr/volume-01/number-03/node3.html) writes: "Most of you will know of Popper's admiration for Einstein, and how he was inspired by the theory of relativity (and by its high refutability in contrast to the irrefutability of psychoanalysis) more than by anything else to develop the criterion of falsifiability as a demarcation between science and metaphysics (Popper 1976, pp. 37-38)."  As KSorenson has already noted, relativity was the theory that inspired the notion of falsifiability in the first place.  The claim that "it is not very practical to devise a test that could falsify General Relativity" is absurd on the face of it. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 10:02, 13 November 2009 (EST)
 
:::::::On Popper and relativity, Christoph von Mettenheim (http://elm.eeng.dcu.ie/~tkpw/tcr/volume-01/number-03/node3.html) writes: "Most of you will know of Popper's admiration for Einstein, and how he was inspired by the theory of relativity (and by its high refutability in contrast to the irrefutability of psychoanalysis) more than by anything else to develop the criterion of falsifiability as a demarcation between science and metaphysics (Popper 1976, pp. 37-38)."  As KSorenson has already noted, relativity was the theory that inspired the notion of falsifiability in the first place.  The claim that "it is not very practical to devise a test that could falsify General Relativity" is absurd on the face of it. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 10:02, 13 November 2009 (EST)
 +
 +
::::::::Popper's personal views are irrelevant; no one here says that Popper was a genius who was always right.  It's [[falsifiability]] that is at issue, and the resistance to that simple, logical concept is astounding.  People can teach Popper all they like, but it's clear that physics majors are not learning fully about falsifiability.  String theory wouldn't exist in physics departments if they were.
 +
 +
::::::::If tests existed that might falsify General Relativity, then in the nearly 100 years since its proposal we would have seen many of them.  Instead, as the latest discussion (and the famous 1919 solar eclipse) illustrate, margins of error in the experiments are typically greater than the deviations predicted by the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:13, 13 November 2009 (EST)
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,194

edits