Falsifiability; necessary (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, June 18, 2015, 08:47 (3237 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Another positive discussion of the need for falsifiability:-http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo33/proving-grounded.php-QUOTE: "Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe, some researchers called for a change in how theoretical physics is done. They began to argue—explicitly—that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally, breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical. We disagree. As the philosopher of science Karl Popper argued: a theory must be falsifiable to be scientific."-So a theistic theoretical physicist could argue that the theory of an intelligent designer is scientific, because it is sufficiently elegant and explanatory not to need experimental testing. High fives among the theists? I agree with the authors' disagreement.
 
It's all pots and kettles. Atheists mock theists for believing in the hypothesis of an eternal intelligence, and theists mock atheists for believing in the hypothesis of a multiverse. Science doesn't come into either belief, and how can it, since the objects of both beliefs are unfalsifiable, untestable and unobservable (unless God decides to put in an appearance)? Yep, pots and kettles. If science is not agnostic, it's not science.