Defending Karl Popper

gh9801 · #1 11-22-2005, 10:10 PM

Given two theories, one highly corroborrated and one not. Both have not been falsified.

Critics: It is impossible to choose a superior theory from these two because neither will ever be confirmed and both have not been falsified.

Are there any ways to defend Popper against this argument?

BluffTHIS! · #2 11-22-2005, 10:41 PM

There is a difference between not being falsified, and being incapable of being falsified, which is the basis of Popper's standard for determining whether something is science or not.

#3 11-23-2005, 01:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Given two theories, one highly corroborrated and one not. Both have not been falsified.

Critics: It is impossible to choose a superior theory from these two because neither will ever be confirmed and both have not been falsified.

Are there any ways to defend Popper against this argument?

[/ QUOTE ]

But really now, shouldn't you be doing your own homework?

benkahuna · #4 11-23-2005, 02:40 AM

I hope he does do his homework here. I'd be downright tickled with the results if he uses what a lot of people could say in response.

Rduke55 · #5 11-23-2005, 11:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
There is a difference between not being falsified, and being incapable of being falsified, which is the basis of Popper's standard for determining whether something is science or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thread over.