Editing 2078: Popper

Jump to: navigation, search

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 16: Line 16:
 
The humor comes when the comic applies this idea to the life and biographical information of Karl Popper himself. Note that, in real life, such a subject would be a matter for ''historical'' proof, not scientific, and would thus fall outside the realm of study Popper was thinking of.
 
The humor comes when the comic applies this idea to the life and biographical information of Karl Popper himself. Note that, in real life, such a subject would be a matter for ''historical'' proof, not scientific, and would thus fall outside the realm of study Popper was thinking of.
  
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.
+
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.
 
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.

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)