@coberst,
Quote: What one needs, therefore is not a boxing match…and the victory goes to the one who deals a knock-out blow…but a sympathetic and imaginative dialogue in which each contestant tries to learn from the rest.”
Unfortunately the process of scientific advancement has included a lengthy period of knock down drag out fighting among the parties involved. I can remember when, as an undergraduate student, the old heads of geology were arguing the validity of "New Global TEctonics" which later became known as the theory of plate tectonics.
As the evidence piled up in favor of plate tectonics, several researchers at Ivy League geology departments were critical and dissmissive of the new theory. Then three scientists proposed to test the new theory by making several predictions based upon falsification.The tests involved making predictions that would only be true IF plate tectonics was falsified.
What followed (in 1970) was an extended period of time as the "falsification prediction" was discussed and the dta was analyzed. Several other predictions were made that USED the toolkit of information that global tectonics provided. Then a coup de gras was presented to the Ivy LEague scientist who was most critical. The several proponents of continental drift compared the same data that the Ivy Leaguer was leaning on , and presented it in light of both Continental Derift and the previous theory (which involved accumulation of sediments in "Geosynclines").
The Ivy Leaguer then accepted the reality of Continental Derift and promptly retired with a statement in which he said that he was "too old" to make a 180 in the way he did his research.
In this case, Falsification was used both in a Predictive and a standard approach , AND a comparison between both means of interpretation was developed to cementthe argument .So its usually never an "either or" in many sciences.
Most times scientific dicovery invokes some mighty disagreements among the parties involved.The hardest thing to do is to develop a new paradigm and then just apply it as if nothing happened. Whenever eartj shaking discoveries are made, there usually resides some researcher on the other side whose entire career has been underpinned by the paradigm being deposed.
I have no opinion about whether Poppers method should or should not be invoked in social sciences. Im n ot sure that Theorems in social sciences are even quantifiable , let alone be falsifiable.
Just a thought.