If a hypothesis isn’t falsifiable (well, disconfirmable), it doesn’t mean it’s necessarily untrue but does it simply mean it has less value?
- ♜Ⓢⓚⓨ ❍ Ⓓⓞⓥⓔ ♜Lv 52 months ago
If we could establish what kind of world we think we are living in, we could use that consider or not consider a hypothesis. Though I kind of feel the very nature of hypothesis is that we have observed something and I feel having observed something any real hypothesis is also falsifiable i.e. through further examination, testing and analysis.
For example, if God were observable, then we could test him; that he is God and not some space alien.
- DescartesLv 62 months ago
According with Karl Popper that Hypothesis is not scientific.
Some people think it has less value, but I don´t agree with that. It means that correspond to other camp, not science camp.
Certain theme of Philosophy for example is not falsiable and then not scientific, but I don't think it has less value than scientific knowledge. Neither less nor more.
- peter mLv 62 months ago
Knowledge has value, no one wants to be on the wrong side of correctness which
leads on to the knowledge of an hypothesis that isn't falsifiable.. E.g most philosopher
commentators don't know if there is an Environmental-virus-type-Emergency right
now but in a few years their hypothesis will turn to the truth...
In the meantime those who better search for example philosophy truth can have or
get valuable knowledge one way or the other ; and usually this can be helped upon
initially by searching elsewhere other that pure philosophy (because as one answer
points out such "pure philosophy" can be infected with subjectivism where the answer
may not be confirmed, denied or "determined" (where currently an important question's answer is determined to show The Limits of an answer or hypotheses,
given in a language.. any language that is consistent. Unfortunately subjective answers are relative to some predetermination so to speak... and this marks their
The next point is whether this inconsistency applies to all languages....
And I believe it does not (I have also shown this but no matter). For it has been
pointed out that in an insensitive philosophical language of the environment
-which dismisses something like an emergent environmental emergency without DETERMINING the true facts- will be inconsistent. I didn't show this because
it is trivial FOR SUBJECTIVISTS because they only need wait somewhat for the correct results to show up, to show that "an emergency" was correctly called.
I have been working on "reigning in" naive, inconsistent religious philosophers
- too many of those here seem to me to be a part of this 'subjective problem'
rather than a solution so to speak.
In connection with the above I came across an excellent example of a connecting
of environmental philosophy (tentative though by someone of knowledge & an independent source) with knowledge of the present coronavirus pandemic ; I think
that the speaker Alanna Shaikh rightly shows what should be consistent objective
valuable knowledge for anyone so interested.. that is the philosophy of SOMETHING Happening now with something that can be soon confirmed - Environmental philosophy (of the future, determined as "new philosophy" so to speak).Source(s): "Coronavirus is Our Future" by Alanna Shaikh TEDxSMU
- tizzoseddyLv 62 months ago
Value is subjectively determined, so some people may actually prefer an uncomfirmable hypothesis over ones that can be confirmed or denied.
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- 2 months ago
whatever do you mean by less value. what is value except what we ascribe to it