|| This explanation may be incomplete or incorrect: There is no evidence that this wasn’t created by a DESCENDANT OF KARL POPPER. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.|
If you can address this issue, please edit the page! Thanks.
was a philosopher of science who endorsed the idea that science is distinguished from non-science by treating its theories as falsifiable. This means that science does not treat any theory as definitive, because future research could show that it is false.
A not uncommon reading of Popper assumes that instead of proving theories, scientists are disproving theories. This reading leads to technicalities like the ones stated in the comic: Instead of asserting that Popper was indeed born on July 28, 1902, and grew up in Vienna, a scientist can only assert that there is no evidence disproving these facts.
The title text takes this reading a couple of steps further in a kind of meta-analysis. It points out that Miss Lenhart's claim of no evidence has not been proven false, and also that we're dealing with only the knowledge of a single individual who may not be aware of evidence that might exist.
Another reading of Popper points out that Popper’s philosophy discarded proofs altogether as a defining feature of science. Thus there is no such thing as definitive evidence in Popper’s notion of science: Even falsifying assertions themselves are seen as falsifiable.
|| This transcript is incomplete. Please help editing it! Thanks.
- [Miss Lenhart is teaching a class of three students: Hairy, Ponytail, and Science Girl.]
- Miss Lenhart: There's no evidence that Karl Popper wasn't born on July 28th, 1902.
- Miss Lenhart: No one has proven that he didn't grow up in Vienna...
add a comment! ⋅ add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅ refresh comments!
I think this might have to do with the President's claims regarding climate change, there's no evidence that I'm not wrong Zachweix (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think you're wrong. I've never seen any evidence that you're wrong. I've never met the guy (I've definitely met the guy).
- ProphetZarquon (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I have no evidence to prove that the comic's explanation is incorrect. 188.8.131.52 18:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)SiliconWolf
- I haven't failed to find no evidence that doesn't prove that you're not incorrect. Cosmogoblin (talk) 13:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
This comic is almost doubly self-referential. Has Randall done that before? Has anyone asked if somebody has done that before? What about asking that: has that been done before?
184.108.40.206 18:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
So how about that? There's no evidence denying that this comic exists and has an explanation, and there's no evidence denying that the explanation is correct ~DiceGuy (talk) 13:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Is the transcript really incomplete? It doesn't seem like it.220.127.116.11 16:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- Doesn't seem incomplete to me either. 18.104.22.168 17:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- There certainly doesn't appear to be any evidence that the transcript is incomplete. Shishire (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- As a counterargument, if a picture is worth 1,000 words, the transcript appears to be about 959 words short of completion. And I fail to see any evidence that the transcript is not incomplete. 22.214.171.124 04:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- Negation by failure. Hey, it works perfectly in PROLOG. ;-)
Every time I read this, it reminds me of Bad Lip Reading's Carl Poppa.
Surely there's no such thing as "historical proof" as opposed to "scientific proof"? That's creationist talk.