falsifying the idea of falsification

[Agnostico]

https://youtu.be/uKEdfAsYNSY

the title pretty much says it. with this chinese flu killing trillions I'm been writing scripts and making videos.

This one is one i think everyone who ever called for falsification needs to hear and understand.

because the term falsification and how it is used in the philosophy of science is being used in the most incorrect in fact the opposite way it was intended to be used for.

Many use it as a panic stop button in any theological argument that is getting out of hand. "well oh'yeah your idea can't be falsified."

The correct response to that is not discussing a scientific theory is , so what.

Because all the idea of falsification is or means is it is not provable through the scientific method. IE not science but pseudoscience/NOT-science. That is what Karl popper wanted and was doing when he wrote the doctrine of modern scientific philosophy. He was narrowing the field of scientific study to three major disciplines which branch out into many many other fields.. but bottom line was his falsifiable argument was intended to separate the field of science from other intellectual tools in your tool box. he unlike you 'smart people today' did not want to run everything through science as a vetting process, but only vet pure scientific study.

for you short bussers this means Falsification is not a term than can correctly be used or applied to idea theory or theological discussion.

want any more, it's in the video. want more than that I can provide a few links but fyi there is alot of reading took two weeks to compile all of this info. if you want more information google it.

I will not be debating the philosophy of science as that is a matter of your ignorance or belief in modern science, and i will not be arguing how this term was intended verse your personal use. again that is a ignorance based on your belief in modern science.

Your a bit mixed up there buddy, let me help.

We all believe in science including yourself. Hard science like chemistry, thermodynamics, motion physics, medicine.
We all rely on these sciences every day. They are applied or practical sciences.

What you are skeptical with is soft science. Theory of evolution, cosmology, climate change.
These are theoretical sciences. They operate on a far lower standard of evidence and are often driven by peoples beliefs.

Karl Popper is one of my favorite sciences. 
His "philosophy of science" is more of a process in determining real science from pseudoscience, i think he may have even invented that term

He basically says that if a claim cannot be tested (falsifiable) then it isn't scientific
We cannot test if there is or isn't a God, therefore it's not scientific to claim either

Big Popper was a huge critic of the theory of evolution his whole life. He called it a pseudoscience and tautology among other things
Only later before he died did he say he accepted the theory though he never believed it or considered it to be scientific

ToE is a hypothesis or a philosophical theory, not a scientific one.

I encourage u to look at the subject a bit deeper. 
Karl Popper really developed this skeptical way of approaching science which has really been lost, allowing several pseudosciences to emerge

An excellent identifier of a possible pseudoscience is if there is disagreement that spans over a decade or two