not saying tis stupid just wondering why something has to be falsifiable for it to be good
sorry if im coming across as a moron
sorry if im coming across as a moron
-
It's not just a good criterion, it's a necessary one. It keeps out the BS.
If an idea can not be shown to be wrong, then it can not be investigated objectively - it can not be determined to be real or imaginary. Such an idea is essentially worthless.
For example, think of idea that is the premise of the movie, The Matrix: that we are all part of a massively complex computer program called the matrix, and that all of our thoughts, memories and perceptions of reality are illusions created by the architect of this matrix. This is an idea that is fun to think about. It makes a good science fiction movie. And it could also be true, but there is no way to objectively evaluate it. So it is not a scientific theory. The same can be said for most notions of god(s), ghosts, and other supernatural/paranormal things.
If an idea can not be shown to be wrong, then it can not be investigated objectively - it can not be determined to be real or imaginary. Such an idea is essentially worthless.
For example, think of idea that is the premise of the movie, The Matrix: that we are all part of a massively complex computer program called the matrix, and that all of our thoughts, memories and perceptions of reality are illusions created by the architect of this matrix. This is an idea that is fun to think about. It makes a good science fiction movie. And it could also be true, but there is no way to objectively evaluate it. So it is not a scientific theory. The same can be said for most notions of god(s), ghosts, and other supernatural/paranormal things.
-
It's a good question...
"falsifiability" means there are measurables in the theory. The better we can measure things, the better we can predict a result. If the prediction is right, then no observations will ever go against the theory (or, more precisely, every observation can be explained in terms of the theory. If there is an observation that cannot be explained by the theory, then the theory has a "hole", which needs to be filled in, either by modifying the theory or by developing a new theory.
So, 'falsifiability' is a way of examining a theory, and finding where it fits and where it doesn't fit. The fewer 'holes' the better the theory. So, it means we can analyse the results. And the fewer 'holes', the better the theory.
If we discount falsifiability, then we have no way of comparing two opposing theories, except by an Occam's Razor approach, and sometimes the simpler the theory, the less able we are to apply Occam's Razor. So, think of falsifiability as a slightly different version, a more sophisticated version, of Occam's Razor.
The bad part is that Popper's methodology can lead to a "counting the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin" kind of stasis, which just stops progression of thought, and doesn't allow for paradigm shifts as easily.
"falsifiability" means there are measurables in the theory. The better we can measure things, the better we can predict a result. If the prediction is right, then no observations will ever go against the theory (or, more precisely, every observation can be explained in terms of the theory. If there is an observation that cannot be explained by the theory, then the theory has a "hole", which needs to be filled in, either by modifying the theory or by developing a new theory.
So, 'falsifiability' is a way of examining a theory, and finding where it fits and where it doesn't fit. The fewer 'holes' the better the theory. So, it means we can analyse the results. And the fewer 'holes', the better the theory.
If we discount falsifiability, then we have no way of comparing two opposing theories, except by an Occam's Razor approach, and sometimes the simpler the theory, the less able we are to apply Occam's Razor. So, think of falsifiability as a slightly different version, a more sophisticated version, of Occam's Razor.
The bad part is that Popper's methodology can lead to a "counting the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin" kind of stasis, which just stops progression of thought, and doesn't allow for paradigm shifts as easily.
-
If it's impossible to prove it wrong, how can it possibly be objectively tested?