Vasilios Vazakas Wrote:I don't think a clarification is necessary. My question posed above was clear and self explanatory.

Albert Doyle Wrote:If indeed Vallee's head injury and mental incapacitation were the signs of somebody who was intended to be a patsy after an act of assassination would that not represent the falsification of the Chicago ruse theory? And since falsification is desirable in order to give a theory credibility and separate it from philosophy, then isn't the expanding of the possible dimension of the Chicago plot something that would be sought in the pursuit of Deep Political thinking rather than discouraged?

Greg Burnham Wrote:

Albert Doyle Wrote:If indeed Vallee's head injury and mental incapacitation were the signs of somebody who was intended to be a patsy after an act of assassination would that not represent the falsification of the Chicago ruse theory? And since falsification is desirable in order to give a theory credibility and separate it from philosophy, then isn't the expanding of the possible dimension of the Chicago plot something that would be sought in the pursuit of Deep Political thinking rather than discouraged?

Forgive my linguistic ineptitude, but I am having some difficulty deciphering your meaning. I am not attempting to be humorous nor insulting.
I simply find little of value in what you are writing in this instance. Again, that's not meant to disparage you or Vasilliops. It's probably just me.

Charles Drago Wrote:

Greg Burnham Wrote:

Albert Doyle Wrote:If indeed Vallee's head injury and mental incapacitation were the signs of somebody who was intended to be a patsy after an act of assassination would that not represent the falsification of the Chicago ruse theory? And since falsification is desirable in order to give a theory credibility and separate it from philosophy, then isn't the expanding of the possible dimension of the Chicago plot something that would be sought in the pursuit of Deep Political thinking rather than discouraged?

Forgive my linguistic ineptitude, but I am having some difficulty deciphering your meaning. I am not attempting to be humorous nor insulting.
I simply find little of value in what you are writing in this instance. Again, that's not meant to disparage you or Vasilliops. It's probably just me.

Now for the bad cop:

GIBBERISH!

Phil Dragoo Wrote:http://www.experiment-resources.com/falsifiability.html



Falsifiability, as defined by the philosopher, Karl Popper, defines the inherent testability of any scientific hypothesis.
by Martyn Shuttleworth (2008)

Science and philosophy have always worked together to try to uncover truths about the world and the universe around us. Both are a necessary element for the advancement of knowledge and the development of human society.

Scientists design experiments and try to obtain results verifying or disproving a hypothesis, but philosophers are the driving force in determining what factors determine the validity of scientific results.

Often, they even determine the nature of science itself and influence the direction of viable research. As one theory is falsified, another evolves to replace it and explain the new observations.

One of the tenets behind science is that any scientific hypothesis and resultant experimental design must be inherently falsifiable. Although falsifiability is not universally accepted, it is still the foundation of the majority of scientific experiments.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3996[/ATTACH]

WHAT IS FALSIFIABILITY?

In its basic form, falsifiability is the belief that for any hypothesis to have credence, it must be inherently disprovable before it can become accepted as a scientific hypothesis or theory.

For example, if a scientist asks, "Does God exist?" then this can never be science because it is a theory that cannot be disproved.
The idea is that no theory is completely correct, but if not falsified, it can be accepted as truth.

For example, Newton's Theory of Gravity was accepted as truth for centuries, because objects do not randomly float away from the earth. It appeared to fit the figures obtained by experimentation and research, but was always subject to testing.

However, later research showed that, at quantum levels, Newton's laws break down and so the theory is no longer accepted as truth. This is not to say that his ideas are now useless, as the principles are still used by NASA to plot the courses of satellites and space probes.

Popper saw falsifiability as a black and white definition, that if a theory is falsifiable, it is scientific, and if not, then it is unscientific. Whilst most pure' sciences do adhere to this strict definition, pseudo-sciences may fall somewhere between the two extremes.

PSEUDO SCIENCE

According to Popper, many branches of applied science, especially social science, are not scientific because they have no potential for falsification.

Anthropology and sociology, for example, often use case studies to observe people in their natural environment without actually testing any specific hypotheses or theories.

Whilst such studies and ideas are not falsifiable, most would agree that they are scientific because they significantly advance human knowledge.

Even pure' or true' science must make compromises and assumptions on occasion. The testing of any theory must take into account the equipment and resources available.

Falsifiability is not a simple black and white matter because a theory, which is difficult to falsify at the time, may be falsified in the future.

The Raven Paradox shows the inherent danger of relying on falsifiability, because very few scientific experiments can measure all of the data, and rely upon generalization.

CONCLUSION

For many of the pure sciences, the idea of falsifiability is a useful tool for generating theories that are testable and realistic.

If a falsifiable theory is tested and the results are significant, then it can become accepted as a scientific truth.

The advantage of Popper's idea is that such truths can be falsified when more knowledge and resources are available. Even long accepted theories such as Gravity, Relativity and Evolution are increasingly challenged and adapted.

The major disadvantage of falsifiability is that it is very strict in its definitions and does not take into account that many sciences are observational and descriptive.

Pseudo sciences undertake research without an initial theory or hypothesis. On the other hand, theories such as 'Intelligent Design' would be classed as scientific, because they have a falsifiable hypothesis, however weak.

Read more: http://www.experiment-resources.com/falsifiability.html#ixzz27EOtJ0H2

Bill Kelly Wrote:I've updated the Valkyrie at DP,
Thanks to all who have commended, criticized and corrected aspects of it, as it is still a work in progress. Of all the plots to kill Castro, I think this is the one used at Dealey Plaza, and further research into the planning and development of this plot will support my contention.
BK [URL="http://jfkcountercoup2.blogspot.com/"]
[/URL]
JFKcountercoup: Valkyrie At Dealey Plaza - Updated

James Lateer Wrote:The idea suggested is that Thomas Arthur Vallee could not have been a patsy because he was not a Communist.