>>11881351>Falsifiability.The idea of falsifiability was proposed by an analytic philosopher called Popper.
>Not really, sexual culture is a manifestation of the genes of the population.I can't comment on this, since I'm not a biologist.
>Its not really about positive proof, but failing to invalidate.Some things can be positively proven. Mathematics is a science, and that's all mathematicians do. The philosophy of math has helped us understand how to prove theorems.
Likewise, suppose I say: "If I had dropped my pencil, it would have fallen." Strict empirical science can only make predictive statements, so for me to believe this non-predictive hypothetical statement, I need to have a theory that isn't strictly empirical. Thus, philosophy of time and philosophy of science, which logicians use to make sense of hypothetical statements.
It's fine if you're a pragmatist, and prediction is all you care about, but I think we can understand things in greater depth when we think about what they mean, rather than just what is and isn't a safe bet.
>>11880921I also like philosophy of language and literature, but most people on /sci/ dismiss the value of literature, so it's harder to argue for these.
