3 upvotes, 0 direct replies (showing 0)
View submission: What exactly is wrong with falsificationism?
otherwise a theory that hasn't been tested at all is just as good as a theory that has been tested 100 times.
I have been unable to understand how this is a substantive criticism. If a theory has not been tested at all, then it has no predictive content that has been tested. It has said nothing whatsoever about what the theory that has been tested 100 times has, presumably, said a great deal. And this alone would be enough to favour the theory that has been tested 100 times over the theory that has no predictive content that has been tested. That is, until there is an available crucial experiment that we can conduct.
There's nothing here!