Falsifiability in Science
Discussions center on Karl Popper's falsifiability criterion as essential for distinguishing scientific theories from speculation, philosophy, or pseudoscience, with debates on whether specific claims or hypotheses meet this standard.
Activity Over Time
Top Contributors
Keywords
Sample Comments
What's unscientific about falsifiability?
It's nonfalsifiable but not for the reason you think :)
I think they're referring to the philosopher Karl Popper's notion of 'falsifiability', the idea that a claim must be possible to proven false to be admissible in a scientific theory.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
It's not science until it can be falsified. Until then, it's merely a speculation.
It is refutable in the sense that you can perfom experiments showing situations where known laws and explanations fail. That is science.Please check out https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability> In the philosophy of science, falsifiability or refutability is the capacity for a statement, theory or hypothesis to be contradicted by evidence. For example, the statement
"The essence of science is falsification. If your hypothesis cannot be proven wrong, it's a faith, not a predictor of fact"this is the point.
Take a look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
But this is not physics, or science, unless you can have falsifiable claims. Otherwise it's just philosophy or metaphysics, which does not warrant a scientific discussion.
Is it scientific? I can't see how it can be falsified, it seems more like an assertion than a hypothesis?
Is Karl Popper's theory on falsifiability as a scientific criterion itself falsifiable?