I was just going by the Wikipedia page. I'm not a positivist
  either (despite growing up with Star Trek and other positivist
  notions of the future) but I also think falsificationism has its
  limitations as well. But generally, I look at the subcultures of
  the sciences for validity: I try to discern "what's trendy" vs
  what seems to stand the test of time within each. Scientists are
  humans doing the best they can, working within their subcultures
  and within a greater society, all suffering from the same
  psychological underpinnings as any of us, so I try to keep that
  in mind when I gauge truth values. == I suppose it is the misuse
  of falsifiability that I take issue with but when it's used
  properly, I'm a fan of it. A proper scientific position knows
  when to say "can't say either way". and yeah, the demarcation
  problem is an issue. I often take issue with the promoters of
  Science for a number of reasons but one of the main things that
  drives me nuts is the promotion of the *least* scientific of all
  of the sciences - the most fantastical and declaring 'this is
  Science, the rest comes from here"... and I dunno, I just find
  it very misleading to people.   ==

You are viewing proxied material from sdf.org. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.