….oh, yeah, on testability, that is where the MWI really loses. ❋ Unknown (2009)
Thus there may be a systematic problem with insisting on 'testability' as a criterion both for what is real and for what it is rational to believe about what is real. ❋ Unknown (2007)
Douglas: That's not the standard manner in which "testability" and "science" are presented by scientists. ❋ Unknown (2005)
Mayden (2002) does claim that there is Popperian "testability" and possible ❋ Faith, Daniel P. (2007)
I think that similar papers are going to spread if the haters of theoretical physics - those who like populist proclamations about "testability" and similar crap - are not eliminated from the system. ❋ Unknown (2010)
Every other argument being presented as a plus of ASP. NET MVC-such as testability, separation of concerns, extensibility, and the like-is just a plus of the framework, not ❋ Devonm (2010)
-- It's a hypothesis that's not testable, and one of the important recognition factors for science and scientific ideas is the notion of testability, that you can go out and do an experiment and learn from it and change your idea. '" ❋ Unknown (2009)
I may listen to Popper, but I have no idea why you keep quoting him like a prophet. chunkdz: I can think of some vague predictions which might be taken as confirmation, but Popper thought that scientific theories should be risky and exposed – not vague and sheltered by lack of testability. ❋ Unknown (2009)
Brayton's argument is broader and alleges ignorance associated with the concept of testability. ❋ Unknown (2009)
All of these are terrific questions, though I wonder whether belief in efficient markets would constitute a folk wisdom, except in the way that nearly every market belief about fear, risk and behavior is forged by experience and emotion, not quantifiable empirical evidence, mostly because testability takes place in a future that has not yet emerged. ❋ Robert Teitelman (2012)
I can think of some vague predictions which might be taken as confirmation, but Popper thought that scientific theories should be risky and exposed – not vague and sheltered by lack of testability. ❋ Unknown (2009)
As William Dembski points out, testability as well as falsifiability is a two edged sword. ❋ Unknown (2009)
Chunkdz – you use 'hypothesis' but let's be very clear this board only uses it in the vernacular – there is never any testability nor falsifiability. ❋ Unknown (2010)
May 18th, 2010 at 1: 19 pm richardthughes: Chunkdz – you use 'hypothesis' but let's be very clear this board only uses it in the vernacular – there is never any testability nor falsifiability. ❋ Unknown (2010)
Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks. ❋ Unknown (2009)
It is long past time to challenge this head-on and to treat climate science like any other endeavor with integrity, transparency and testability. ❋ Unknown (2010)
You've used definitions, demarcations, claims of vacuity, claims of testability, prior independent knowledge, and now "no evidence". ❋ Unknown (2008)
