Re:Carl Sagan's Rules for Bullshit-Busting and Critical Thin...
by crabmusket on Sunday October 29, 2023 @05:41PM
(#38063099)
Not all useful tools for thinking must be considered science. I think it's quite fair to say the Drake equation isn't "science".
However, I think Popper's "conjecture and refutation" is a more interesting model for thinking about the increase of knowledge than falsifiability is.
Through that lens, you might say the Drake equation was a conjecture intended to stimulate refutations, which might lead to further productive theories.
Popper's essays on Parmenides are really interesting on this. Popper frames Parmenides' philosophy as essentially a conjecture that "change is an illusion", and the history of western science since then as various "research programmes" in response to that. I'm summarising terribly, but I think he illustrates well the value of conjectures that aren't necessarily "scientific" in stimulating thought.
However, I think Popper's "conjecture and refutation" is a more interesting model for thinking about the increase of knowledge than falsifiability is.
Through that lens, you might say the Drake equation was a conjecture intended to stimulate refutations, which might lead to further productive theories.
Popper's essays on Parmenides are really interesting on this. Popper frames Parmenides' philosophy as essentially a conjecture that "change is an illusion", and the history of western science since then as various "research programmes" in response to that. I'm summarising terribly, but I think he illustrates well the value of conjectures that aren't necessarily "scientific" in stimulating thought.