Page 2 of 2 [ 16 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

12 Nov 2013, 3:18 am

wittgenstein wrote:
The theory of evolution is elegant. One can see that it works, even without the data.
1. Random mutations.
2. Those best adapted have a greater chance of survival.
3. Longer survival spans, mean a more likelihood of offspring.
However, to seal the deal, empirical evidence was necessary. Similarly, even tho relativity (as a theory) seems inevitable, it was not until astronomical observations proved it that it was accepted as fact.


Agreed and also agreed that Evolution is science. That is why I used it as an example of the incompleteness of Popper-ism the un-falsifiblity of any historical science (of which evolution is one) marks it as a Popperian Pseudo-science.

I think a better definition of Pseudo-Science would be be clinging to theory that is falsified or does not economically fit new facts.

For instance if I do biology based on young earth creationism I would be a Pseudo-scientist Right?
But not according to Popperian (unless he was torturing logic.)
The Young Earth theory is falsifiable we have rocks tree and human artifacts older than 7000 years.
so Young Earthism is not pseudo-science and a Young earth creationist is not a Pseudo-scientist.

A Popperian would come to this conclusion because Falsifibility is a faulty rubric for pseudo-science.

Using the definition of Pseudo-science I am proposing hopefully one does not fall into theses sorts of strange category problems.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/