That is what makes it a theory, the fact that it isn't falsifiable. If it were, it would be a fact or a theorum. For example, circle theorum works because it has been proven and is falsifiable. If it wasn't, it would be called circle theory. What makes a theory scientific however, is that there is supporting evidence to suggest that the theory makes sense.
I think you are confused. A theorem is not falsifiable. Theorems follow deductively from a set of axioms, and the concept of falsifiability does not apply to them. You can dispute whether the axioms reflect the physical universe, but that is irrelevant to the truth of the theorem - plenty of axiomatic systems don't reflect the physical world, but they're still valid and they still provide useful results. You could show that the axioms are inconsistent (that they contradict each other), but then you still haven't _falsified_ the theorem (every statement is provable with an inconsistent axiomatic system) . You've just shown it to be meaningless. A scientific theory follows very different rules. They don't necessarily follow from a set of assumptions, and instead are backed up (or refuted) by empirical observations. So a theory can absolutely be falsified, while a theorem cannot.
Falsifiability is not necessarily simple and binary. Popper was an extremely important Philosopher of science, but like science itself, his model has been improved upon by later philosophers. The idea has been refined the idea towards a more probabilistic approach. Kuhn might have gone too far in the opposite direction, but elements of Kuhns model can be accepted without throwing out the Popperian model. Such is the case with Lakatos' ideas.
This script sucks, not falsifiability. The entire argument presented here is a strawman. Falsifiability is about whether or not something can be proven false, not about whether or not people will completely abandon a theory because one thing is inconsistent with it. In example one, Newtonian physics would have been falsified, but scientists would adapt the theory to mesh with reality. This has happened in the past, relativity and quantum mechanics were created because classical mechanics don't work on things that are really fast and/or really small. However, we still use classical mechanics on things that aren't on the atomic scale or moving near the speed of light because the predictions made are still accurate.It's the same with evolution. The theory of evolution has not remained as a single static entity since its creation, parts of it have been falsified and subsequently modified to adapt (heh) to new observations.
Extremely simplistic.
Love this video!! Thanks for sharing your thoughts. What a fresh perspective.
That is what makes it a theory, the fact that it isn't falsifiable. If it were, it would be a fact or a theorum. For example, circle theorum works because it has been proven and is falsifiable. If it wasn't, it would be called circle theory. What makes a theory scientific however, is that there is supporting evidence to suggest that the theory makes sense.
I think you are confused. A theorem is not falsifiable. Theorems follow deductively from a set of axioms, and the concept of falsifiability does not apply to them. You can dispute whether the axioms reflect the physical universe, but that is irrelevant to the truth of the theorem - plenty of axiomatic systems don't reflect the physical world, but they're still valid and they still provide useful results. You could show that the axioms are inconsistent (that they contradict each other), but then you still haven't _falsified_ the theorem (every statement is provable with an inconsistent axiomatic system) . You've just shown it to be meaningless.
A scientific theory follows very different rules. They don't necessarily follow from a set of assumptions, and instead are backed up (or refuted) by empirical observations. So a theory can absolutely be falsified, while a theorem cannot.
Falsifiability is not necessarily simple and binary. Popper was an extremely important Philosopher of science, but like science itself, his model has been improved upon by later philosophers. The idea has been refined the idea towards a more probabilistic approach. Kuhn might have gone too far in the opposite direction, but elements of Kuhns model can be accepted without throwing out the Popperian model. Such is the case with Lakatos' ideas.
Too many butthurt Popper fanboys disliking this video
Nice animation skills . . . I'm not able to falsify that.
This script sucks, not falsifiability. The entire argument presented here is a strawman. Falsifiability is about whether or not something can be proven false, not about whether or not people will completely abandon a theory because one thing is inconsistent with it. In example one, Newtonian physics would have been falsified, but scientists would adapt the theory to mesh with reality. This has happened in the past, relativity and quantum mechanics were created because classical mechanics don't work on things that are really fast and/or really small. However, we still use classical mechanics on things that aren't on the atomic scale or moving near the speed of light because the predictions made are still accurate.It's the same with evolution. The theory of evolution has not remained as a single static entity since its creation, parts of it have been falsified and subsequently modified to adapt (heh) to new observations.
Science does not claim certainty. Your argurment is simply wrong.
This video is utter nonsense.
Lol
i wasted 3 minute and 40 seconds on this video.