where were you when the humanities departments have hunted falsifiability into extinction?
>>467199
What?
Where were you when Karl Popper's opinions still weren't an objective standard for evaluating all human pursuits?
>>467199
>where were you when the humanities departments have hunted falsifiability into extinction?
When did Kuhn publish "structure of scientific revolutions" and highlight the problem of incommensurability again?
>>467199
>Marxism
>science
Who claims this?
>>467696
> Scientific "progress" is as much because people research as it is that old scientists die off.
Kuhn hits hard in the feels.
>>467709
"Progress" is Kuhn's way of telling us to KILL MORE PROFESSORS.
>>467707
>Who claims this?
Engels claims it in Anti-Dühring, but "science" means something different in Engels from what you mean with it. Althusser claims likewise to Engels.
Popper, Kuhn or Lakatos... What really surprises me is the ignorance of actual scientists (and stem fags) about philosophy of sciences.
>reading a physics book
>author starts bragging about science' progress, equating scientific method to induction, and declaring science give us objective truths.
>>467199
In some alternate universe, I guess. Oh, maybe the Star Wars universe! That would be fun!
>>468792
>In some alternate universe, I guess. Oh, maybe the Star Wars universe! That would be fun!
It is modally real!
What's Freudism?
>>468619
Science does deliver objective truths, though.
Some notions in science aren't actually the truth, but few of those are supported by lies, just holes in knowledge.
>>468853
I'll accept it :^)
>>467870
Standards of scientific rigour were different when Engels was writing, weren't they? As I recall the idea back then was to come up with a theory, and then try to corroborate it, rather than to falsify a theory.
one day english will nolonger be a part of the humanities department one day
Let me explain to you why this is stupid
1.The model of Karl Popper is based on a series of assumptions regarding social structures, subjectivity and ontology
2. Since both Freudianism and Marxism make different assumptions on this themes, they are inevitably wrong in Poppers model. Even if they were falsifiable, they would be wrong, were they not wrong Karl Poppers theory would produce a contradiction
The conclusion is: an interpretation is a theory, a theory based on assumptions, any other theory is inevitably wrong if it makes different assumptions
Tl;dr: stop caring so much about things you obviouly dont care just because youve got nothing else to do. Unplug the computer,get a hobby
You are neo/lit/ cancerposting, I hope it makes you happy
>>469673
> they are inevitably wrong in Poppers model
They don't even discuss the same thing. You're comparing apples and grön.
>>468892
>Science does deliver objective truths, though.
Russle pls
>>467199
where were you when you realized the falsifiability criteria is itself unfalsifiable?
>>469743
Wasn't it's entire purpose to generate more accurate and useful results? So whether it holds up to its own standards is irrelevant in the face of its practical applications.
>positivism
>even once
>>469750
The same can be said for praxis in marxism.
>>469743
Of course it isn't falsifiable.
Philosophy of science is not science.
>>469743
Obviously. The whole idea is to build a science by applying modus tollens to the scientific methods.
>>467199
Chillin' with Herotodus. He's a pretty cool guy, ain't scared of nuffin'. Maybe I'll write a book about it someday.
>Is Popper's falsifiability theory falsifiable?
>>467199
can you upload a smaller picture ? this one is too big i can almost read stuff on it.
>>469442
It's also an English speaking versus continental divide. "Science" in many European languages/cultures can also refer to any sort of rigorous study of something.
These threads only further asserts me any modern and postmodern philosophy is just a massive circlejerk hiden behind buzzwords and fancy terms to cloud how pointless and worthless this whole pursuit has become.
>>469750
If that is the case then it must follow that falsifiability as a criterion is not a general epistemology, but merely a helpful tool in one branch of knowledge.
