In a previous post, "Not Even Wrong," I pointed out that the belief that there is life on other planets is, in terms of Karl Popper's falsifiability criterion, no more scientific than belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The Peanut Gallery got all up in arms about it and generally missed the central point of my post.
And then there was P.Z. Myers, who does a great imitation of bull in a china shop, asserting that I am a creationist and that I was somehow defending the falsifiability criterion (which, ironically, I have called into question several times on this blog), talking down Popper's demarcation criterion.
And I now notice Sean Carroll has advocated the abandonment of the falsifiability criterion over at the Edge.
Funny how far down this test to tell the difference between science and non-science has come since the Dover v. Kitzmiller decision, which employed the criterion to determine that Intelligent Design was not science.
Ten dollars says these people still think the reasoning in the Dover decision was legitimate despite the fact that they have now reject the criterion employed in coming to it.
Oh, and don't miss Massimo Pugliucci (an atheist who actually knows what he's talking about on the philosophy of science) responding to Carroll here.
1 comment:
In a previous post "Not Even Wrong," I pointed out that the belief that there is life on other planets is, in terms of Popper's falsifiability criterion, no more scientific than belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
And we pointed out that your assertion was false and based on a (probably intentional) misunderstanding of the "belief" in life on other planets.
I also notice you don't actually say what this "point" of yours was that we allegedly missed.
Post a Comment