The philosophy of science

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

Sometimes I think that declaring something "unscientific", or untestable by Poppers standards is intellectually lazy. Not everything can be tested in a lab! For example economics often relies on correlational and historical research.  A better example of "its not testable and thus it is bull$sh**t" is often the argument used by those who oppose Psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis is a meta-theory derived from the feedback of patients, and thus many of Freud's original hypothetical explanations not universal but can still be observed. For example Penis Envy should be interpreted has to mean" Gender identification usually occurs at a young age." This "Gender identification" can be observed over and over again, but it cannot be tested under laboratory conditions.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

Popper's philosophy is not necessarily straight forward empiricism; his key concept is falsifiability.  A hypothesis or model is legitimate if it can be proven false.  If there is no rational possibility for refuting it then it is essentially useless to the progress of science.

I understand but some people use poppers tool as a way of proving or disproving a theory, even when that theory might not good for scientific testing.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

It's amazing how willing Popper was to contradict his own form of hyper-empiricism when it suited his whims to do so.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

It's amazing how willing Popper was to contradict his own form of hyper-empiricism when it suited his whims to do so.

fo real dawg?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

It's amazing how willing Popper was to contradict his own form of hyper-empiricism when it suited his whims to do so.

fo real dawg?

Read part two (especially the final few chapters) of The Open Society and its Enemies.

[Earth]

Popper's philosophy is not necessarily straight forward empiricism; his key concept is falsifiability.  A hypothesis or model is legitimate if it can be proven false.  If there is no rational possibility for refuting it then it is essentially useless to the progress of science.

I understand but some people use poppers tool as a way of proving or disproving a theory, even when that theory might not good for scientific testing.

Of course people would use it since it is practically invaluable, but if a theory's 'not good' for scientific testing, it's either not scientific, or it's not within the domain of science to test it.