Talk:Verisimilitude

message: Yeah...this one needs some cleanup.
agree. The first paragraph is mostly gibberish with no sourced material
"Popper was among the first to affirm that truth is the aim of scientific inquiry while acknowledging that most of the greatest scientific theories in the history of science are strictly speaking false"
There are many categories for the evolution of science but to claim that all past theories are false is ludicrous. It also shows a profound ignorance of Popper and the idea of falsification and verisimilitude. Two theories may be proposed as correct but one might have more explanatory power than another or is simpler(Occam's razor). This does not mean the other theory is false.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.187.251 (talk) 05:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: add Philosophical Verisimilitude. (check Stanford's Online Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Verisimilitude.) lakitu 11:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophical Verisimilitude 

message: I just added the theatre's use (or knowing disuse) of verisimilitude, but the rest of this entry needs far more citation and checking.Ndpagency 20:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Theatre 

message: Someone with the knowledge might like to describe how character flaws and verisimilitude are linked and how that effects the audience's emotional attatchment.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.27.151 (talk) 08:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Perhaps

message: It was proposed as being inadequate. By Poppers own writings, it cannot be 'shown' to be inadequate. By Godels incompleteness theorem
it cannot be proven inadequate. It is only opinion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.230.36 (talk) 22:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this as well - how is it not simply an opinion to say that a philosophical theory was 'shown inadequate'? Should we have a new Wikipedia category for philosophical theories that qualify as 'not being inadequate' so that we can put them onto stone tablets?158.143.132.28 (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: His logical definition of Verisimilitude was independently shown inadequate

message: I first heard this word in the TV sitcom The Dick Van Dyke show.  I very vaguely remember Carl Reiner (but not as Alan Brady) discussing the word with Rob.  Since it's not really a word most people hear in everyday conversation, it stuck in my mind.  If I can find any info (which is often difficult for 1960's TV material) I'll see if it can be incorporated into the article Ched (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  in culture 

message: I've just added a couple of prepositions so that the example is not so colloquially American. Yergnaws (talk) 06:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  tiny change to raining eg 

message: Isaac Asimov wrote a great essay on how one wrong theory can be preferred over another wrong theory
e.g. newton gravity beats aristotle gravity
I think he deserves a mention here too.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.117.60 (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Relativity of Wrong By Isaac Asimov 

message: This takes the cake for worst article on Wikipedia. I feel like I've been out drinking with a friend who showed up for half of his Philosophy 101 classes and was rambling on at 2am.
:Yeah, so be bold and fix it! Grayfell (talk) 07:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow 

message: I could be wrong in making this comment (in which case, I will look like an idiot) BUT should "all false consequences of A are consequences of B" actually read "all false consequences of A are false consequences of B"?  
I'm not sure I understand all the consequences of Verisimilitude or the Mathematical Theories/Foundation surrounding it, so I could very well be wrong.  
ASavantDude (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Very Tentatively Possible Error on Page

message: But this article seems to be soley to define a word. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.215.17.61 (talk) 04:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read the Karl Popper article you will see that it is a more complex concept in the philosophy of science.  For some reason it is more extensively discussed there. --68.35.156.229 (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a dictionary