Talk:Falsifiability
This page should live at falsifiability, no? And Popper is not the only, or arguably even the main, guy to consider when writing about falsifiability. --LMS
- Who are some others? (you're probably the best-versed in this area, Larry) --Seb
- I might not be. Anyway, all the logical empiricists talked about it (i.e., discussed it, as an alternative to the verifiability theory of meaning), and it's an essential concept in the philosophy of science. It wasn't owned by Popper. Hopefully I'll get a chance to write up what I know about the topic soon, but probably somebody'll beat me to it. :-) --LMS
I think all Conspiracy theories are unfalsifiable. They can be proven true, but they can't be procen false. From the article about Conspiracy Theories: A conspiracy theory is the exact opposite
of a [scientific theory]?, in that it cannot be refuted: even evidence to the contrary is taken by the conspiracy theorist to support the notion that an extremely powerful conspiracy is at work, that just has fabricated this evidence.
Conspiracy theorists usually reject only some kinds of evidence,
those they think could have been falsified by members of the conspiracy.
But there's still many kinds of evidence that they accept, most notably "scientific" evidence. --Taw
"All green things are green" is not a good argument, given that philosophy of language people have "grue" and "bleen". A scientist observing a "grue" item would agree that it is green, until it transforms. GregLindahl