Re: Baghdad

On May 26, 7:38 pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
On May 26, 9:09 pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Franz Gnaedinger wrote:

If I made things up you could easily falsify my
reconstructions. But you can't,
That doesn't make them true. Why isn't that obvious to you?

Last week I read an article on Karl Poppers
criterium of scientific falsibility. The author
says there are many physical theories that
can't be falsified, and yet they are truly
scientific,

Then you should stop reading Karl Poppers, whoever he is.

Please. For an intellectual or academic or for that matter anyone
claiming the right to offer opinions on serious matters not to have
heard of Popper (not Poppers) is truly shocking ignorance. You may or
may not agree with his criterion of falsifiability for a theory to be
scientific (he has a famous example vis-a-vis psychoanalysis - both an
action and its opposite (I think it was jumping into a lake to save a
drowining person) are consistent with psychoanalysis thereby
disqualifying it as a science)


while Newton's physical theory
was falsified a long time ago but is still
in use.

It wasn't falsified, it was shown to be incomplete, and it's as close to
perfect as it needs to be for use for most mundane purposes.

Falsifying isn't really the way how
the sciences proceed.

Of course it is. Nothing that can't be tested is accepted as a
scientific conclusion.

Is PIE a scientific theory?


  What actually happens

is that scientists are gathering evidence in
favor of their idea or hypothesis or theory,

Whereas you make up stuff in your head, and you associate unrelated
things and imagine that they are related.

.