> Popperism is not a universally accepted definition of science. Not even by scientists themselves.
Well, false, but you would already know this if you had scientific training. It's discouraging to see so many young people trying to dismantle the Enlightenment without a full awareness of its origins and rationale.
Calling the foundation of science "Popperism" is like calling Democracy "Athensism," as though it's a temporary fashion or fad, open to replacement by something easier to negotiate.
Scientists sometimes grant a field a temporary reprieve to allow it to evolve -- string theory comes to mind -- but no one with scientific training dismisses the critical role played by falsifiability.
In Carl Sagan's "Baloney Detection Kit" (https://centerforinquiry.org/learning-resources/carl-sagans-...), we find this: "Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much."
Guess how many scientists risk their professional standing by arguing against this self-evident principle?
Well, false, but you would already know this if you had scientific training. It's discouraging to see so many young people trying to dismantle the Enlightenment without a full awareness of its origins and rationale.
Calling the foundation of science "Popperism" is like calling Democracy "Athensism," as though it's a temporary fashion or fad, open to replacement by something easier to negotiate.
Scientists sometimes grant a field a temporary reprieve to allow it to evolve -- string theory comes to mind -- but no one with scientific training dismisses the critical role played by falsifiability.
In Carl Sagan's "Baloney Detection Kit" (https://centerforinquiry.org/learning-resources/carl-sagans-...), we find this: "Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much."
Guess how many scientists risk their professional standing by arguing against this self-evident principle?