falsifying the idea of falsification

[Drich]

At work.

Sorry to have missed it but.... what can not be subjected to the scientific method?

the playing of music, poetry, written history, theology, geography, while linguistics is all the various disciplines separately are not. you do not need the scientific method to read. reading has it's own rules. topography. really all subjects except pure science. Then all the semi scientific fields Popper call pseudo science.

---

..What do I mean about...no evidence...?   What the fuck are you even babbling about?

There you go getting popper wrong, again, anyway.  Popper addressed logical positivism.  Poppers work delegitimized -any- product of logical positivism.

The op sport. why are you this deep in the thread arguing if you ave no clue as to the nature of the op?

and on the second bit I am explaining how he did this:
Popper, 1902-1994, railed against dogmatism in all forms. He is best-known for the principle of falsification, a means of distinguishing pseudo-scientific theories, like astrology and Freudian psychoanalysis, from genuine ones, like quantum mechanics and general relativity.

[i]Observations can only disprove a theory, or falsify it. In The Open Society and Its Enemies, published in 1945, Popper asserted that politics, even more than science, must avoid dogmatism, which inevitably fosters repression. Open Society has been invoked lately by those concerned about the rise of anti-democratic forces. Popper’s falsification principle has been used to attack string and multiverse theories, which cannot be empirically tested. Defenders of strings and multiverses deride critics as “Popperazzi.”[/i]

[i]https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cro...rl-popper/[/i]

Again what popper did was separate science from things like theology. You retards who use the term 'falsification' are using it backwards as a way to use science to delegitimize all non scientific fields.

[The Grand Nudger]

I guess all of that work was wasted, then, since you decided to hoist your god up by a falsifiable petard, huh?

[Drich]

I guess all of that work was wasted, then, since you decided to hoist your god up by a falsifiable petard, huh?

again irrelevant argument.  

all falsification does is to say it is a scientific argument. 

So let logically conclude your line of thought shall we.. 

lets say God is falsifiable then what??? are you now saying God is provable by science?

[The Grand Nudger]

Falsification, for the umpteenth time, applies to all products of logical positivism...theology included.

[no one]

The grand asshat has found another site to post its inane twaddle in.

[GUBU]

Popper did say evolution was not falsifiable

And Popper was wrong about that. But then there's nothing unusual about Karl Popper being wrong.

And what's with the crazy font stylings? Are you copy pasting from other people's websites again?

PS the bullshit about evolution not having evidence, really fucking stupid lie there Agnostico. Evolution has pretty much the best evidence base in the whole of science. But then you don't give two shits about reality do you, because the voices in your head are telling you not to.

[Agnostico]

Not at all! It's a pleasure to see someone make a case, with quotes and links. There's way too many posts that just say, "Wrong, stupid."

Cheers mate. I like using different font to identify quotes and that
Oh man there are a few posts that just say something like "Popper wrong"
Try not to feed the trolls i think

I'm not knowledgable enough to evaluate what he said about the need to rethink evolution. Naturally it's a mine field

Hehe im not sure anyone is knowledgeable enough to evaluate all of Karl Popper's works. You'd have to be well educated in so many fields of study from ancient Greek philosophy to the most recent scientific theories he really did touch just about everything

A minefield. Try be in my shoes. I don't support Creationism or Darwinism nor do i reject them either. So im open to attack from both sides. LoL
Im like Hiroshima with a target drawn on my back. That's why i don't want to enter a debate on evolution, especially when other people are giving 3 word relpies
Like "Na Popper wrong" best just to laugh at such posts

Actually come to think of it, im nothing, Karl Popper was the real Hiroshima. He got smashed by Darwinists, creationists, astrophysicists, psychologists, psychiatrists, cosmologists and im sure by many other fields. 
And he's still spitting lyrics on wax from the grave Big Popper

Popper is a legend. Whenever I revisit him I come away with an even bigger a appreciation of him. 
He was very agreeable later on in his life towards everyone, as u would be if you were 90yo and lived your whole life being bombarded and misunderstood from everywhere
I wonder what else is locked up in these secret archives of his. He documented so much work and would often go into isolation to think without being influenced by anything else
Ohh a diary would be absolute gold, Big Popper returns from the grave with his true unfiltered thoughts, prophecies, revelations anything is possible from the big Pop

The case of contrasting Einstein with Freud is really instructive. I'm a big fan of Freud, and while Popper was certainly right in saying that Freud's theories aren't science, this is for me part of their charm. Again, they force uncertainty on us, which is a good thing.

Ye the Albert vs Sigmund story is one of my faves. I felt bad for Freud and the field of psychology which was really in it's infancy back then, Jung is another good psychologist of that era that laid down the ground work for what we know much more about today. But Big Popper wasn't at all discrediting Freud

I have a soft spot for the white swan analogy. Cos im in Australia and have only seen black swans in real life. Its fun to think about for me anyway

But u hit the nail on the head with the added quote.

So I'm pleased to see that for Popper, calling something unscientific isn't calling it worthless. He was a broad-minded thinker.

I think that's the immediate reaction from people is that Karl rejected everything and dismissed it all
When really he is just poorly understood. A complex thinker, a real skeptic, open minded as u said and just ahead of his time really

[Succubus#2]

A minefield. Try be in my shoes. I don't support Creationism or Darwinism nor do i reject them either. So im open to attack from both sides. LoL

Bollocks. It's a binary position either godidit or nature did it. How can you not have an opinion?

[Belacqua]

A minefield. Try be in my shoes. I don't support Creationism or Darwinism nor do i reject them either. So im open to attack from both sides. LoL

Bollocks. It's a binary position either godidit or nature did it. How can you not have an opinion?

The gospel of John begins by saying that God is the Logos. Logos is a term from Neoplatonic and Stoic philosophy which refers to the sum of all the principles by which the world operates. 

For the many Christians who interpret John in this way, God is the principles by which things happen. God is the rules of logic and the laws of nature. 

In such a view, "God did it" and "nature did it" are entirely compatible.

[The Grand Nudger]

A person who insists that nature is somehow subservient to or dependent on god, and was so in this particular instance, is not offering any sort of compatibility between those two options. They are explicitly asserting that god did it. God and nature are not compatible in that view, as explanations. The explanation is god and cannot be nature.

Pretty ridiculous attempt to rehabilitate the beliefs of "many christians"....really..since we know for a fact that evolutionary biology has nothing to do with a tinkering ghost...regardless of what they might bullshit themselves into believing was "compatible".