undefined | Better HN

0 pointsberntb9y ago0 comments

So you give up on my point regarding experimental sciences (which was what Popper was about) and the rest -- like economy, palaeontology etc?

The scientific method is what is used by the experimental ("hard") sciences. Do you really not know this?

This is the start of the second paragraph of Popper's wikipedia page, defining what he wrote about:

"Popper is known for his rejection of the classical inductivist views on the scientific method, in favour of empirical falsification: A theory in the empirical sciences can never be proven, but it can be falsified, meaning that it can and should be scrutinized by decisive experiments. ..."

Popper even was a professor of logic and the scientific method...

I am sorry, I have to soon assume I'm being trolled here.

Edit: You can e.g. also see the discussion of Popper's work here, where it is also discussed explicitly that he argues about how the scientific method works: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#GroHumKno

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

pandaman9y ago· 1 in thread

Thanks, judging by your refusal to answer my question you do seem to understand that your position is indefensible.

berntbOP9y ago

You ignored that I argued your questions about Popper is not relevant for my point [edit: if nothing else, that argument also applies to astrophysics, archaeology, history, etc], so your dismissal here forces me to dismiss you as a serious debater.

Enough.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse