orgyen jigmed wrote:According to Karl Popper the discrimination criterion that distinguishes a scientific theory from a non-scientific theory is the principle of falsifiability. Strictly speaking Buddhist Cosmology has not been falsified, and thus it cannot be disproved.
That was Popper's biggest mistake, or the mistake of those who took him ontologically. He didn't notice he's trapped in a circular argument there, or some didn't notice he was only arguing for the sake of science, not ontology. Consider this: He argues along the lines that true is the opposite of false, over an extensive period of time, and the longer the period of non-falsification, the likelier the truth value. But ... and that is the main point ... that needs a definition of "false".
If you're a computer scientist, dealing with programming languages, C particularly, you might remember the following:
#define FALSE 0
#define True (!FALSE)
Popper made a stipulative definition what false may be (for the sake of science, and in the same moment he defined truth along with it, following a preset set of logic rules that were accepted in a consensus). Both, his true and false, are only perspectives, how Thomas S. Kuhn pointed out, periods of scientific consensus or disagreement. Although, for the body of science, Popper's definitions are logically consistent. Which is a good thing, for the sake of "normal science", which tries to disprove or elaborate on the current consensus. Until a flaw sets in, things become false, and a new model and consensus must be found. Which happened again and again in the history of science, and will happen again and again. Newton. Tesla. Einstein. Four Elements. Atoms. Standard Model (Quarks). Quantum Field Theory. Loop Quantum Gravity. And now maybe a new particle and questions about gravity will cause re-thinking once more. Same with psychology and medicine: Four humours. Five elements and meridians. Brain as mass of glibber and soul. Phrenology, with brain as machine. Neuronal science, brain as recurrent network of neurons with multiple closures. What next?
But it is a bad thing if you try to create existential truth from Popper's statements. Popper's argument is not one about substance, or at least it should not be.
Human conscisousness is able to take on many perspectives (mirror, diamond, likely: all perspectives which there are secondary causes for (roughly equal to) that can be seen). Some are easier, some more difficult to take on, dependent on the way you grew up and what you experienced up to now (conditioning). The scientific consensus is just one model of many. Undeniably a very practical one when it comes to physics and the understanding of such an abstract description of conventional dynamics. Enables us of tool use that has never been there before. It should be followed and elaborated on.
But ontologically, it's the fallacy of a circular argument.