Falsifiability is not the scientific method

Falsifiability is not the scientific method
falsifiability is discredited by science its self
falsifiability principle it is not good philosophy of science.

it is a method of scientism not true science
it no more than the myth psuedo scientists use to demarcate science from what they call non-science
it is a myth to perpetute the elitism of science and make out it is something different from those areas of action that threaten the scientism
it is a myth
it is bullshit

physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/16478

Which is what was done, and should have been done, in the example you gave about the experiment that contradicted Einstein’s theory. Moreover, if a single experiment contradicts the predictions of a theory, you don’t have to immediately throw it out. You can modify it, tweak it, so that it predicts better.

No, you’re wrong. Science isn’t elitist. Scientism isn’t a word. And nothing is bullshit except bullshit.

Uh, of course falsifiability isn’t the end all of the scientific method.

Obviously some things are true or false that we can’t test, whether they are true or false is an issue of sciencee, if science can’t test it, it needs to make the estimation in other ways, but its a good guiding tool to use.

For example, before microscopes you couldn’t talk about micro-organisms sensically, that doesn’t mean that germs weren’t an issue of science, only that we should be very very wary about making claims without experimentation, but there is some limited ways that can lend limited evidence towards idea X, without it.

Its not the end all of the scientific method, but if someone’s ideeas aren’t falsifiable, even in concept, red-warning lights should go off until you can be assured or presented some rational/logical arguement as to why you should accept a non falsifiable idea.

I do think that if experimentation can’t be done, and things aren’t falsifiable,thatther usually is an issue worth looking into though. You definatly shouldn’t believe it on face-value or anything like that.


for example, the concept of falsifiability in current medicine.

Does medicine A work against infection B.

The way we determine this is looking at how many people recover from infection B in comparison with a placebo, the medicine working is falsifiable; test it and if it works. If under no circumstances could you think of any situation in which the medication wouldn’t work, even in concept, you probably shouldn’t feel comfortable taking it.

This evidence gathering is the basis for any real medication, they pass trials.

go read some histories of science ie T Kuhn
and stop spourting the myth

i have given enough examples which show falsifiability is not the scientific method
go believe what ever bullshit you want
it want change the fact that there is no science and no scientific method only scientism

Whether you want to call it science or the scientific method, theres a huge different between the process that determines whether a medication works and selling herbs on the side claiming its a cure for cancer.

Before a medicine can be sold to us, it has to pass double blind statistical trials against a placebo, in most cases the medication has to demonstratably work better then a placebo, that requires collecting evidence based on trial for condition X with both placebos and medicine A.

I can’t wait until you’re banned or everyone has you on ignore.

bullshit
look at the anti depressent rubbish
ample test proving it works over many years

then

we get a study which proves it is all myth as they are no better than sugar pills
so much for your scientific method

Prozac, used by 40m people, does not work say scientists

Analysis of unseen trials and other data concludes it is no better than placebo

see the medical journal
medicine.plosjournals.org/perlse … 50045&ct=1
What it means is 40 million people just talked them selves out of depression solely on the authority of their doctors telling them the antidepressent work
what does that say for the power of authority and people believing authority figures

and what does it say for the power of the mind
or Guardian artcle
guardian.co.uk/society/2008/ … alresearch

bullshit
look at the anti depressent rubbish
ample test proving it works over many years

then

we get a study which proves it is all myth as they are no better than sugar pills
so much for your scientific method

Prozac, used by 40m people, does not work say scientists

Analysis of unseen trials and other data concludes it is no better than placebo

see the medical journal
medicine.plosjournals.org/perlse … 50045&ct=1
What it means is 40 million people just talked them selves out of depression solely on the authority of their doctors telling them the antidepressent work
what does that say for the power of authority and people believing authority figures

and what does it say for the power of the mind
or Guardian artcle
guardian.co.uk/society/2008/ … alresearch

Yes, which is why many many scientists have talked about antidepressants not working for over a decade.theres meta-analysis showing that therapy works just as well in all cases and whether its performed by a layperson off the street or a psychaitrist.

and the ‘standard social science model’ isn’;t based off real science.

So before you run your mouth about science try envoking real science. Just because everyone thinks its real science doesn’t mean that it is, as they don’t follow like any scientific protocol.

you’re more then a few decades behind as the glass/mary meta-analysis that showed this shit about therapy its decades old.


Not everything claimed as science is science. grow up.


If you read one of my other posts in any of the subjects, you’d know exactly how I feel about anti-depressants, the standard social science model, psychotherapy,so forth and so on. And they don’t lend to your point, at all.

Because guess who found out all this shit about antidepressants not working? therapy not working? do you know what that was? double blind trials against a placebo, the information had been supressed and when the FDA released more and more information to that effect.

the meta-analysis showing therapy is useless and performed as well as people off the street is decades old, the fact that this information was ignored and hidden from the public is the issue.

the issue is public policy invading science to the point it can control science, to the point that it can supress information.

Evidence pointed to the fact that after a woman was raped, most women don’t stay fucked up mentally for life, the APA seen this, thought it was horribly insensitve, and the exact opposite conclusion appeared in its place. Based on nothing, after the research had been performed and found out that they did recover mentally, most times, a t least to the point of being able to live normal lives.

The APA and the standard social science model are not this huge scientific enterprise, not when they can ignore the results of their evidence and hide that from us.

The information that antidepressants didn’t work was always there, the FDA after the freedom of information act released many more studies to indepedent groups of researchers, thats not an issue in science, its an issue in human society that we didn’t have a freedom of information act that would have allowed a more thorough looking over from peer research, not that many scientists didn’t arrive at that conclusion without the extra shit from the FDA.

if the information was never supressed we wouldn’t have to deal with this.

councelling doesn’t work any better either.

there is no science
as there is no method
falsifiablity is not the method of science
if it was manyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy theories used today would have been abandoned years ago

early tests of einstiens theory showed it was wrong-but it was not abandoned

scientificexploration.org/js … and/1.html

you’re ignorant, you pick the least scientific shit to point out errors in science.

No, their errors in people who think their performing science when in reality they are ignoring massive chunks of data or are whatever. Not only do you choose to pick an obvious example of nonscience, but science had already come to those conclusions far before the FDA information was released, and everyone ignored the results.

Thats tough.

You’re a troll. Whether you want to call it science or not;

the information was always known that antidepressants didn’t work, that therapy didn’t work, that the standard social science model wasn’t based on any real evidence, and was demonstratably wrong in many cases.

That doesn’t stop society from accepting it as true, or from accepting therapy/antidepressants as working.

Researchers had figured that therapy didn’t work well (or they worked equally well, nomatter who performed) and that antidepressants didn’t have a statistical success rate. Society accepteed it as true, not indepdent researchers and groups of researchers who had always pointed out it was wrong.

Your example is stupid, you are stupid.

fact is falsafiablity is not the method of science

i have shown you
newtown einstien freznel

So, you think there is absolutely no difference from a team of independent researchers doing statistical double blind trials and testing medicine against placebo to see its statistical effects is the exact same thing as mixing some grass and tree bark from your backwoods and selling it as a cure for cancer?

Obviously, the same process produces both, obviously we can’t diffrentiate between them.

you’re a screechy broken record, and whats worse, the album, when new, was trash anyway.

haha the anti depresent bullshit shows as long as you believe it works it can work
so yes some snake oil salesman could make a cancer cure as effective as any bullshit anti depressent

the anti depresent bullshit shows the power of the mind if it believes hard enough

and that has nothing to do with any bullshit myth scientific method

Antidepressants are a placebo, they barely work better then sugar-pills. Sugarpills work to an extent, for somthing to be sold to us as real medicine (not the same people or organizations regulate psychological medicine and other medications) it needs to pass placebo trials significantly.

For somthing like heart failure, the medication being tested needs to significantly work better then the placebo in double-blind trials. That is, it must work significantly better then a sugarpill that people think works.

thousands of christians but up home-made cures for cancer, 100% sure that they will work. Guess what, they don’t. Guess what sugarpills in statistical trials with thousands of people doesn’t cure cancer, even if you convince them that its a the best treatment available.

Sorry, people don’t control tumours or cancer with the power of their mind you ignorant hick.

It has to do with gathering evidence based on trials and statistics, which is different then how the antidepressants got unto the market, or how people claim that herbs cure cancer.

I know you’re a stupid, nonsensical, ignorant, probably ugly troll, but i’ll reply to you anyway. Just because every post you make, with that same ignorant bullshit, makes me fucking laugh.

You’re entertaining me. Keep it up.

Infact I know quite a few cancer patients who held off medical care for placebo, they were 100% convinced it was working.

Unless the herbs were designed to promote cancer growth/tumor growth, it failed.

the doctors pushing anti depressents where no better than snake oil salsemen
same for the scientists pushing the shit
so much for any scientific method of double bind
the shit was around for years passed by the FDA based on scientific methods

from a pharmacetical pushing the shit maintained science proved the shit worked
hahaha

hahaha
if you say people new the antidepresent claims where falsified that just goes to show again it was not enough to get them off the market
hahahahaha

Which has nothing to do with science you piece of shit! but public policy invading things that the ignorant mass public like you THINK is science.

When science confirms that somthing doesn’t work past placebo and therapy all works equally well, and everyone ignores it except legitimate scientists whose voices are crushed by the public who are too ignorant to do real research.

Thats not true science.

try not to focus on the catchwords ‘science’ and actually reply to the point. reseachers knew this shit didn’t work, and they were supressed by the public. thats not ‘science’ so its not a failure of science.

ignorant.

this has nothing to do with the public but only science
the FDA is not the public

and Eli Lilly is not the public

the shit was on the market not because of the public
but
because of reputable people saying it had passed a scientific method
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA