He also famously got into a heated debate with Wittgenstein over the nature of philosophical inquiry. So heated, that Wittgenstein almost beat Poppers ass with a fire poker, or so the story goes[1].
He also famously got into a heated debate with Wittgenstein over the nature of philosophical inquiry. So heated, that Wittgenstein almost beat Poppers ass with a fire poker, or so the story goes[1].
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Re...
The account of how science does work is still being debated. Perhaps Kuhn disavowed his account later, but that doesn't matter with respect to the most important parts of the book.
His defenders, of course, would claim that that naive falsificationism is a misreading of him.
An another comment pointed out, this is extremely obvious from the bayesian point of view.
To me, "scientific" means "uses scientific method", which in turn is a set of tools that are pretty successful in understanding universe. Scientific method is certainly not fixed set of tools - for example, computer simulation became very useful only recently.
Maybe doing whatever string theorists are doing will become useful in the future, and as such their method will become part of scientific method; but since we aren't really sure if string theory itself is true, we can't consider their methodology to be useful (or useless) and so part of scientific method.
For me looking into String Theory's status as scientific/not-scientific is a good way to learn that the Popperian view of falsifiable==scientific is a bit too simplistsic and that classifying things as scientific/not-scientific may not even be a productive activity. It's just not that simple.
In the meantime it's generally best to listen to scientists talk about it to get a feel for its standing: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/28pzc1/string_t...
A good quote from that thread which may answer your question: "Anyways, my point is that String Theory is not just some whacky idea "what if everything was strings" that exists in a vacuum, but is rather a very natural and conservative extension of Quantum Field Theory to a more general and less arbitrary framework."
And here's a blog post (series of posts) linked from that discussion which may also help: http://profmattstrassler.com/2013/09/23/quantum-field-theory...
Following Gentzen, Dummett, Prawitz and Martin-Löf, verificationism serves as the backbone to modern intuitionistic and constructive meaning theory.
A great introduction may be found at [0], if one is already well versed in Bayes theorom, then an excerpt [1] should be enough.
[0]: http://www.yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes
[1]: http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanography/researchers/francoi...
http://www.amazon.com/Out-Of-Error-Critical-Rationalism/dp/0...