[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

orion Evidence _in principle_, was Re: Falsifiability (fwd)

On Mon, 6 Oct 1997, Jay C. Treat wrote:

> Asia:
> According to Asia Lerner:
> > I cannot help wondering if any of F. Cryer's opinion (on DSS or other
> > academic issues) are falsifiable on present evidence. If yes, why does he
> > hold them? If no, same question. The theories which on present evidence
> > can be falsified have a shorter name - they are false.
> The falsifiability principle is (as Fred correctly pointed out) that, to
> qualify as a hypothesis, an assertion must be falsifiable _in principle_.
> That doesn't mean that current evidence in fact falsifies it.  It means
> that we can envision encountering evidence that could falsify it.

Why correct me? F. Cryer was the one who brought in "falsifiability on
present evidence", as was clear from the quote which you carefully cut
out. As for "falsifiability in principle", which is certainly closer to
what Popper said, please do me a favor: define what counts as "evidence
_in principle_" in context of a historical claim, and show me why such 
evidence may not exist in the case of S. Goranson's claim.   

	Best,	Asia