hahahah
point is at the time einstiens theory was shown to be false as the predicted was not validated by observation
if falsifiability is the method of science
then
at the time einstiens theory should have been abandoned- it was not
i have already discussed both of these points
if a prediction is not validated by observation that is not the same as showing the prediction is false
sometimes information provided by experiment is bad or incomplete
read my pocket example again
falsifiability only means that scientists require their theories to be disprovable
it does not say that scientists must abandon a theory just because some guy does a bad experiment saying theory is wrong
i will return to the pocket example
suppose you do not see that i have 2 pockets
you search left pocket and do not find 20 dollars
then according to you i should abandon my belief that i have 20 dollars
since you did an experiment showing all the pockets you know about do not contain 20 dollars
but i know i have 20 dollars and you are just ignorant of my other pocket
you are the same as a guy who does a bad experiment
you missed a detail that caused you to do the experiment wrong
so i should not abandon my belief that i have 20 dollars
for the same reason scientists should not abandon einstein just because somebody does a bad experiment
haha
we are not talking about further or futrue observations
that can only be shown after the initial experiments
and when einstiens was first tested it failded ie was shown to be false
and based on falsifablity it should have been abandoned -it was not
lol how simplistic
so according to you in the pocket example
if the left pocket is empty and you miss the right pocket
then instead of searching again for the right pocket
you should just believe that i could not possibly have 20 dollars
and never go searching again
one must ABANDON the belief forever and never think about it again
because once an experiment seems to show a theory is wrong we must immediately abandon the theory and never think about it again or try to figure out if the experiment went wrong
dude you have no idea how bad you would fail a basic science lab with that mindset
you’d be lucky to leave with an F-
hahaha
yes it is very simple falsifiablity is not the method of science
physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/16478
your source is attacking popper on the basis that popper makes statements which popper simply does not make
popper said that a theory should be falsifiable to be scientific
it does not follow that a falsification should force the scientist to abandon the theory
interpretation of the results is always up to the scientist
popper’s point remains that the theory should in principle be disprovable
it’s just that any given disproof is up for interpretation
and einstien was falsified shown to be false
but was not abandoned
so lets keep useing all the false theories of science then
einstein’s theory was not conclusively shown to be false
just suggested to be false by one experiment which may have been done poorly
in your own cited article it is noted that the experiment may have been bad
the experiment was a claimed falsification not necessarily a real one
it is up to the judgment of the scientific community to determine if a claimed falsification is a real falsification
the community determined that the claimed falsification was not real based on other evidence
as a result relativity is still used today, and guides GPS systems, how cool is that?
does not matter
under falsafiability it should have been abandoned at the time- it was not
simple
where does falsifiability say that a theory must be abandoned just because some experiment says it’s wrong, even if the experiment might be bad?
popper never said that, only an ignoramus who has never done a science lab would say that
hahaha
so lets start useing all the false theories
lets start with the geo-centric theory
wow
we might fire a rocket at alpha centuri and hit it
hahaha
the geocentric theory is not accepted because it is falsified by many different independent experiments and a vast body of coherent theory about astrophysics
that is completely different from one experiment done by one person seeming to disconfirm relativity
especially since there were also experiments and logical reasoning which confirmed it at the time (and lots more in the present day)
the level and quality of falsification is completely different, which is why science accepts the first but not the second
you have not shown that one questionable experiment should cause scientists to abandon a theory
you have advanced no quotes and no arguments for that
so it is up to scientists to decide how much falsification should lead them to abandon a theory
haha
so lets bring back all the false theories
haha
indeed
well now that you’re just repeating your refuted points there’s nothing more to say
hope this has been interesting for you
fact is falsifiablity is not the scientific method
if it was then many theories used today would have been abandoned
if you add the cavert that scientist must decide how many experiments decide if a theory is false
then we ask which scientist
who decide
etc
then you are bring politics in to it and then you must now give an ammendement to falsifiablity
subjective judgment and politics are an inescapable part of science
if they weren’t we could replace people with science robots
you would learn this if you ever worked in a group in freshman physics
there are principles that help us find scientific truth like falsifiability
but they are only guides to the individual scientist’s judgment
as the quote says
so falsafiability dose not help find truth
for as you now say
we have to have a gabble of scientists putting up their hands
as i say
who picks the scientists
and which scientists decide
and who decide just how many experiements are required
all this is proof that falsiability is not the scientific method
i disagree with your source’s interpretation of popper’s principle, hence i am not convinced by your quoting his assertions
i’ve already discussed why his einstein example does not support his contention against falsifiability
falsifiability has to do with whether a theory can be shown wrong in principle, not with when exactly that has happened in practice
in practice deciding when a theory is falsified is up to scientists subjective judgments of the available evidence
as example, if i say i have 20 dollars in my pocket
you know you can in principle search all my pockets for the money
so the claim is falsifiable
but in practice you cannot be sure your search found all the pockets
so it is up to you to decide whether you have done thorough enough search
same thing goes with science
and with all human knowledge, it is all a matter of interpreting limited data
his theory was proven false in principle by the experiements
what more do you want
read the pocket example again
no experiment is ever conclusive disproof of any theory
whether it amounts to disproof is up to the interpretation of individual scientists
falsifiability only means there is a hypothetical way to disprove the theory
it is up to interpretation to decide whether that hypothetical way was actually achieved in practice
in the pocket example, you can hypothetically falsify my 20 dollar theory by searching all my pockets
but in practice you can’t be sure you have searched them all
it is up to interpretation for you to decide whether you have falsified the theory