10 Answers

  1. You're confusing cause and effect.

    There are sciences as a phenomenon of our civilization. Popper had a problem, he solved it – the problem of understanding what separates what is considered science from what is not considered science. He proposed a falsifiability criterion as a solution, but as you can see for yourself, it was not quite successful.

    And it's not even about mathematics and history – it's possible to describe them as falsifiable sciences-but Popper himself did not recognize the theory of evolution as scientific for a while, because he could not find a way to refute it.

    Science is more complex than falsifiability, and measuring science by it is like calling a human a biped without feathers.

    If you are trying to define a person and suddenly a one – legged person with a feather in his hair does not fit there, this will be a problem for your definition, not for a person.

  2. Economics, sociology, psychology, philology, cultural studies, political science, anthropology, and law were forgotten. The very criterion of falsifiability is also pseudoscientific. And in general, there are no true sciences, only pseudosciences. Well, as it is-pseudo-is.

  3. The criterion of falsifiability does not apply to formal sciences such as mathematics. Philosophy is a separate phenomenon, it can very conditionally be considered as a science. History, on the other hand, has not matured to form a comprehensive theory – or so it is believed.

    Science in development goes through at least three phases. The first is a collection of facts, such as”on the southern coast of the Crimea – warm, on the southern coast of the Laptev Sea – cold”. The second is the identification of empirical patterns, such as”the further south, the warmer”. The third is the emergence of a theory that explains empirical regularities and tests it: “temperature depends on the height of the Sun above the horizon; therefore, if this is so, in the Southern Hemisphere it should be the opposite – warm in the north, cold in the south.” At the same time, a theory in a third-level science can usually be easily expressed in the language of mathematics.

    Well, mechanics became a third-level science under Newton, in the 17th century. Optics – in the 18th. Electrodynamics – at the beginning of the 19th century, biology and chemistry-in the second half of the 19th century, medicine-in the first half of the 20th.

    It is believed that history has simply not had time yet. In fact, of course, it already had its first comprehensive theory: Marxism. But it is paradigmally unacceptable for many people, and therefore they want to assume that it does not exist and it does not count.

  4. If your statement that they do not pass the falsifiability criterion is correct ( I am not sure about this), then yes – from the point of view of the falsifiability criterion, they should be classified as pseudosciences. I don't see this as a problem – this is just a confirmation of the scientific nature of the falsifiability criterion :). From the point of view of the falsifiability criterion .

  5. Of all the scientific disciplines, ONLY mathematics and history should be recognized as science (s). These two disciplines are based on evidence, while all others, including natural sciences, are based on faith… I believe that if 10,000 experiments gave results that are not out of a certain narrow range, then 10.001 will also give a similar result. Alas, life constantly refutes this belief…

  6. The Popper criterion applies exclusively to the imperial sciences: physics, chemistry, biology, and so on. It is not applicable to formal sciences: mathematics, computer science, and so on.

    But formal sciences are based on proofs that are stricter than falsifiability.

    Also, the Popper criterion does not apply to the humanities, which include philosophy and history.

    As a result, the falsifiability criterion has a limited scope, and it is not applicable to all sciences by definition.

  7. I would not refer to philosophy as a “pseudoscience”. Most likely, it is taught poorly in universities, so students dream of quickly completing the course and forgetting it like a bad dream. Philosophy, strictly speaking, is a whole field of knowledge, akin to medicine and law, and the field is fundamental. In my opinion, the two most important sections of philosophy are:

    1. Ontology is the science of being, what is “to be”, how to “be”. What is real and what is illusory. The most famous paradox is about the chicken and the egg.

    2. Epistemology – the theory of scientific knowledge, how other sciences are engaged in knowledge.

  8. How do you put math and humanities together? Well, they are usually correct calculations, you can't go against them. History, too, who likes it or doesn't like it – it doesn't matter if they are facts and in Africa they are facts. Humanitarian, but necessary. But phylosophy is already a more crude concept. There is no single philosophy, there is no basis of knowledge supported by experiments and observations in it either, trends in philosophy are also at war with each other, it's like myth-making, a flight of fancy. But philosophy usually does not pretend to be objective. At least it's modern.

  9. Obviously mortals don't have pseudosciences at all. All their sciences are a set of illusions elevated to the rank of truth…And as long as people are stuffed with them, they will remain mortals for sure

  10. Why do you think so?

    1. In mathematics, these criteria are perfectly applied. For example, testing statistical hypotheses.

    2. History is exactly the same. If you find documents or artifacts that refute some historical theory , then here it is.

    3. Philosophy is, rather, not a science but, so to speak, a “pre-science”. In philosophy, problems are raised and understood that science has not yet reached. I think philosophy will eventually disappear.

Leave a Reply