Scientific proof - NOT

[Jayhawker Soule]

This has been the position of science ever since positivism was (rightly) overthrown. Popper et al continually talk about falsifiability rather than proof. However, while I understand the necessity of avoiding proof, I reject wholeheartedly the conclusions of Thomas Kuhn and I think we can do better as far as epistomological theories go than is currently discussed in the philosophy of science.

Feel free to offer alternatives in a relevant thread. I prefer Popper to Kuhn but believe both are dated. Stll, it has little to do with the topic at hand.

 

[Oberon]

Feel free to offer alternatives in a relevant thread. I prefer Popper to Kuhn but believe both are dated. Stll, it has little to do with the topic at hand.

It has something to do with the topic at hand though (and I prefer Popper to Kuhn too). It seems that people are increasingly taking advantage of not only the language of science ("it's only a theory") but, on a more advanced level, the epistomological theory behind it. If nothing can be known for certain, apparently anything goes.

 

[meogi]

Jay, you forgot the best part of proofs... liquor!

 

[slave2six]

Too often we encounter It's only a theory ...

I think the main problem is that too many people confuse "theory" with "hypothesis" or think that a "theory" is nothing more than an educated "guess."

But, as someone else pointed out, nothing can be known. Well, I take that back. Those things that are are and those things that are not are not. There aren't talking trees because there aren't. There are fruit trees because there are. It's pretty simply but most people want to confuse reality by infusing meaning into it.