Falsifiability (Introduction)

by GateKeeper , Thursday, December 18, 2014, 18:09 (3416 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
edited by GateKeeper, Thursday, December 18, 2014, 18:16

for me "falsability" always seemed silly. If a conclusion is based in something known and it seems reasonable then that's what we say about it. "it seems reasonable". If it seems reasonable but cannot be tested yet then that is what we say about. "reasonable but it's not testable yet". Like string theory. it is reasonable based in the notion there is no "things" and realy only "events". Couple that with the notion that space itself is "something" then "strings" are possible. but we can't test it yet and the math is wacky." 
> > stating that it is not falsible means it is not testable yet. It seems to me as a thing used to quite the "literalist" or a better way say it "a tool needed to slow down pushy and arrogant people. I usually say 'I don't care that you have a pHd in, let's look at what you just said again as see if it is reasonable based on what we know." 
> > But thats just silly no nothing me. 
> 
> Eh... no. Just no. That kind of language is ok among philosophers or buddies over beer, not in science. It is contrary to the scientific method, more practically, allowing that type of reasoning into the scientific arena wastes taxpayers money. If it can not be tested, and can not be observed, it is not scientific.-wow, you just proved my point.-"contrary to the scientific method"? wow!!!!!!!!!!! nutz. unreasonable people waste tax payers money thus we make up copout terms like " Falsifiability".-example: http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Falsifiability.html-The claim "no human can live forever" when investigated properly does not need the word at all. It is only needed to shut down a literalist.-when you say "does not belong in science." do you mean textbooks or people have to stop trying to engineer experiments to find out? Like the LHC?