Science is in crisis. The Popper was wrong?

[joinfree]

The Popper's scientific criterion "scientific theory is always refutable'', must be replaced by "scientific theory is always confirmable''. The correction of Popper thought is needed. Is needed to change the aim of tests. The aim of test is not to disprove a scientific theory, but to confirm it. If sadly happens, that theory becomes disproven, then the theory is not scientific anymore. Otherwise, the vector is directed towards idiocy, not evolution: scientists are called to lie, for Science to be refutable. If someone refutes the Scientific Theory, then latter is not Scientific anymore, and not confirmable. But it stays forever refutable, if once is refuted.

The Flat Earth is refuted, so Flat Earth is scientific, because is forever refutable.
And look, how the Love, Respect, and Trust are lost in them​

The Popper's destructive ideology is incompatible with dogmatic knowledge, with Absolute Truth. Latter can not be refuted. That is why there is conflict between Religion and Technical Science. There is difference: theist Immanuel Kant has destroyed Thomas Aquinas's five proofs of God by using the wish-full thinking only: Kant wished (according to Popper's definition of Science) to destroy, wished to refute. Better is to wish to confirm, to built, to Love the theorem authors, to Respect their work.

CONCLUSION:
The Popper's criterion "any scientific theory is disprovable'' is replaced in Q-Science [MY PROJECT] with the vector of progress: "any scientific theory is provable''.

Much more in:

 

[Resha Caner]

Sigh.

 

[Halbhh]

ok, that's fun.

But the value (off the top of my head at the moment) in Karl Popper's criterion is that if we entertain theories (as equally worth considering) which can never be tested -- theories which could never be falsified -- there will be no way to choose among competing such theories, as they proliferate, about some one area of science. You can end up with many theories that contradict each other in significant ways, and no way to ever choose among them or know if any have any value.

Saying you seek to prove a theory is only another version of Popper's criterion I expect, in that you are probably just saying you want to be able to test the theory, and find it survives -- passes various tests. So, you'd then only have another wording for the same thing Popper is saying we should use. You'd just be re-wording Popper's point in new wording.

But then there is one more aspect to consider -- passing a lot of tests doesn't ultimately prove a theory is more than only an approximation.

Example: Newton's law of gravity: passes a lot of tests, for centuries, and seems proven.

Until....until we get to situations fine enough to discover it's only an approximation, corrected by Einstein's General Relativity.

 

[joinfree]

ok, that's fun.

But the value (off the top of my head at the moment) in Karl Popper's criterion is that if we entertain theories (as equally worth considering) which can never be tested -- theories which could never be falsified -- there will be no way to choose among competing such theories, as they proliferate, about some one area of science. You can end up with many theories that contradict each other in significant ways, and no way to ever choose among them or know if any have any value.

Saying you seek to prove a theory is only another version of Popper's criterion I expect, in that you are probably just saying you want to be able to test the theory, and find it survives -- passes various tests. So, you'd then only have another wording for the same thing Popper is saying we should use. You'd just be re-wording Popper's point in new wording.

But then there is one more aspect to consider -- passing a lot of tests doesn't ultimately prove a theory is more than only an approximation.

Example: Newton's law of gravity: passes a lot of tests, for centuries, and seems proven.

Until....until we get to situations fine enough to discover it's only an approximation, corrected by Einstein's General Relativity.

The correction of Popper thought is needed. Is needed to change the aim of tests. The aim of test is not to disprove a scientific theory, but to confirm it. If sadly happens, that theory becomes disproven, then the theory is not scientific anymore.

 

[Resha Caner]

The correction of Popper thought is needed. Is needed to change the aim of tests. The aim of test is not to disprove a scientific theory, but to confirm it. If sadly happens, that theory becomes disproven, then the theory is not scientific anymore.

No.

 

[Halbhh]

The correction of Popper thought is needed. Is needed to change the aim of tests. The aim of test is not to disprove a scientific theory, but to confirm it. If sadly happens, that theory becomes disproven, then the theory is not scientific anymore.

The problem with saying you test in order to prove a theory is that you can wrongly then think that theory that works well, shown over and over to work, is then the final perfect theory, a theory that always works.

Newton's Law of Gravity is a great example. Proven to work, over and over. Seeming perfect, and final.

But it wasn't.

It was only an approximation.

 

[joinfree]

The problem with saying you test in order to prove a theory

Read my wording: test is meant not to prove, but to confirm.

 

[OBuscador]

 

[tas8831]

The correction of Popper thought is needed. Is needed to change the aim of tests. The aim of test is not to disprove a scientific theory, but to confirm it. If sadly happens, that theory becomes disproven, then the theory is not scientific anymore.

I personally think that the falsification criterion of Popper is over-emphasized, and that in practice, the 'attempt to falsify' is de facto performed when 'doing the opposite' - when you test your hypothesis, you can falsify or support it depending on the outcome, regardless of what you set out to do.

For example, you do like this:

'I have hypothesis X. I must now seek to falsify it. If I do not falsify it, then it is tentatively supported.'

or you could do this:

'I have hypothesis X. I will now seek to support it. if I cannot support it, then it if falsified.'

The end result is the same.

 

[joinfree]

I personally think that the falsification criterion of Popper is over-emphasized, and that in practice, the 'attempt to falsify' is de facto performed when 'doing the opposite' - when you test your hypothesis, you can falsify or support it depending on the outcome, regardless of what you set out to do.

For example, you do like this:

'I have hypothesis X. I must now seek to falsify it. If I do not falsify it, then it is tentatively supported.'

or you could do this:

'I have hypothesis X. I will now seek to support it. if I cannot support it, then it if falsified.'

The end result is the same.

No, human: it is difference between hell on Earth and the happy life. Look: The Popper's destructive ideology is incompatible with dogmatic knowledge, with Absolute Truth. Latter can not be refuted. That is why there is conflict between Religion and Technical Science.

 

[Ophiolite]

Popper was a philospher, not a scientist. Tens of thousands of scientists practiced their trade for more than a century before Popper laid out his thoughts on the scientific method. Hundreds of thousands of scientists have done their research and published their papers since then. I wonder how many carefully assured that their work met Popper's criteria for being scientific before embarking on it? I suspect not many and then only in order to meet grant application requirements, not philosophical necessity.

 

[Halbhh]

Read my wording: test is meant not to prove, but to confirm.

As i was trying to say above, thats another wording for Popper's standard of testing a theory -- that a theory be testable -- and doing tests to confirm it can work.

 

[tas8831]

No, human: it is difference between hell on Earth and the happy life. Look: The Popper's destructive ideology is incompatible with dogmatic knowledge, with Absolute Truth. Latter can not be refuted. That is why there is conflict between Religion and Technical Science.

OK, bro...

 

[joinfree]

As i was trying to say above, thats another wording for Popper's standard of testing a theory -- that a theory be testable -- and doing tests to confirm it can work.

No, there is difference: theist Immanuel Kant has destroyed Thomas Aquinas's five proofs of God by using the wish-full thinking only: Kant wished (according to Popper's definition of Science) to destroy, wished to refute. Better is to wish to confirm, to built, to Love the theorem authors, to Respect their work.

 

[Ophiolite]

No, there is difference: theist Immanuel Kant has destroyed Thomas Aquinas's five proofs of God by using the wish-full thinking only: Kant wished (according to Popper's definition of Science) to destroy, wished to refute. Better is to wish to confirm, to built, to Love the theorem authors, to Respect their work.

A little more respect for what Halbhh and tas8831 have said in this thread might lead you to recognise you are mistaken.

 

[Resha Caner]

Popper was a philospher, not a scientist.

That's not quite correct. Popper had a PhD in psychology, and did enough academic study in math & physics that he lectured on those subjects. It was not until 1937, 9 years after earning his doctorate, that he began lecturing on philosophy and he never obtained a degree in philosophy that I'm aware of. In 1949 he was appointed professor of logic and scientific method at U of London.

 

[Resha Caner]

A little more respect for what Halbhh and tas8831 have said in this thread might lead you to recognise you are mistaken.

joinfree is talking, not listening.

 

[Ophiolite]

That's not quite correct. Popper had a PhD in psychology, and did enough academic study in math & physics that he lectured on those subjects. It was not until 1937, 9 years after earning his doctorate, that he began lecturing on philosophy and he never obtained a degree in philosophy that I'm aware of. In 1949 he was appointed professor of logic and scientific method at U of London.

Correction noted and generally agreed to. Concision used for rhetorical effect.

joinfree is talking, not listening.

And this despite the fact that God (apparently) gave us two ears and only one mouth, as though that was an implicit suggestion.

 

[joinfree]

A little more respect for what Halbhh and tas8831 have said in this thread might lead you to recognise you are mistaken.

Are we living in perfect world? If yes, do you like terrorism?

 

[Resha Caner]

Concision used for rhetorical effect.

Understood. But I will note that based on my path through science, I tend to consider Popper, Kuhn, etc. to be undervalued. Many of my fellow engineers have no idea the topic of falsification even exists ... and I was never taught it. I found it on my own when I began to question certain aspects of mechanics.