Hacker News Reader

So why didn't the author even mention falsification?

Because many philosophers of science reject Popper's views as unrepresentative of the way science is done by real people in the real world. The Wikipedia page for falsifiability enumerates some of these criticisms.

Well, then those real people aren't doing science.

This is the No True Scotsman fallacy, and a rather obvious example of it.

OK, so what do you consider to be science with hypotheses that can't be falsified?

Edit: Much cosmology and some theoretical physics seem pretty iffy to me, but at least there's the possibility of falsifiable hypotheses.

http://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/socialresearch/f...

Interesting, but it doesn't mention Kuhn.

Also, there's seems to be some attachment to the idea that truth can be proven.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com