This is a good article up to the point where it becomes mired in U.S. politics, after which it becomes unsatisfying. The author addresses the core question with reference to Karl Popper's principle of falsifiability, then counters with Larry Laudan's well-known critique. But then, instead of turning to contemporary discussions (which include topics such as paradigms, scientific programs, measurement, data and instrumentation, among others) Michael D. Gordin looks at some court decisions related to evolution, and concludes that "as a matter of legal doctrine it (falsifiability) was enshrined." This may be true, but it's irrelevant. U.S. courts do not have jurisdiction over whether something is or is not scientific.
Today: 5 Total: 5 [Direct link] [Share]
