Quote:
|
Originally Posted by punkworld
What you are saying is absolutely nonsense. Let's say I have the theory that "All geese are white". According to you, I should now establish a counter-theory, e.g. "No geese are white", prove it false (which is easily done by taking a picture of a white goose), and voila, I have proven the clearly false "All geese are white" to be a law.
Read the following slowly, and at least five times (you need it)
What Popper proved (logically) is that proving theories (empirically) is impossible. "Proof" is impossible. One can only try to prove them false ("falsify" them), by subjecting them to the most risky and demanding experiments. A single instance of the theory not working will prove it false, and each positive result does not prove the theory but rather "corroborates" (makes stronger) the theory.
Ockham's Razor: Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate
There is no "necessary falsification of the opposite theorem", you fool.
Would it hurt you to at least read an introductory book on the philosophy of science before you open your mouth and spout absolute nonsense? |
You not that stupid so stop pretending to try and justify your arguement
The opposite of "all geese are white" is not and will never be "no geese are white" it is "all geese are NOT white" that is specifically why i said "the opposite in it's entirety not just in part". There are tests for however one test is infinately more manageable than the other. to prove all geese are white to be false you need to produce one goose that is not white. To prove that all geese are NOT white, you need to prove that you have collected all geese and that they are all white.
If your interpretation was correct we would not have a single LAW, which makes the entire question moot.
The problem is that there are LAWs of science (the law of contant gravity (G) for example).
In the case of the law of constant gravity, we were able to determine all of the counter forces (air resistance) that prevented a feather from hitting the ground at the same time as the buckshot and create an enviroment where that force would not apply (vacuum) and test under that situation.
The theory of contant gravity force was the counter theorem to the theory of mass dependent gravitational force (which was the prevelent theory btw).
The test of an object falling in a vacuum had to prove one of those theories to be false (either the objects would hit the botton at the same time, or they would not).
We got the LAW of constant gravity because they hit the bottom at the same time.