>
. . I think you will find that this very question forms the basis of many discussions. As a sceptic, that is exactly what I ask; I find it fascinating. I do not think it is 'dismissing' an issue if you ascribe part of the phenomenon to the workings of the human mind. ~Avondrow
Based on X-ray images of the brains of people making
decisions, a study concluded there was evidence that types of
thinking considered "rational" and "emotional" overlapped, in
contrast to older concepts that the mind is sharply divided.
"Even while making a decision, such as 'Should I put on my
seat belt?' you intuitively realize that without the seat belt,
you might get hurt in a crash. That's an emotional image. If you can't envision that, you can't make the decision to wear the seat belt", the researcher, Shibata, said.
Oct, 01: Einstein's theory of Relativity made predictions about the results of experiments. These experiments could have produced results that contradicted Einstein, so the theory was (and still is) falsifiable.
. . The theory that "there is an invisible snorg reading this over your shoulder" is not falsifiable. There is no experiment or possible evidence that could prove that invisible snorgs do not exist. So the Snorg Hypothesis is not scientific.
. . On the other hand, the "Negative Snorg Hypothesis" (that they do not exist) is scientific. You can disprove it by catching one. Similar arguments apply to yetis, UFOs and the Loch Ness Monster. ~Hootmagundy
(early Jan, 01): A better way to look at it is, "Does the hypothesis lead to predictions that are, at least in theory, testable?" If so, then it qualifies as a scientific hypothesis. The Ptolemaic theory of the solar system and the Lamarckian theory of inheriting acquired characteristics are scientific hypotheses. It's just that subsequent empirical evidence has shown them to be entirely unsupported.
. . That's just the way science is. Nothing is ever proven or disproven to an absolute certainty. Everything is just a provisional hypothesis. Nothing could have been more solidly established than Newton's Laws of motion and gravitation. Then Einstein came along and showed they were wrong.
Still tremendously useful in many circumstances, but inaccurate in other contexts.
. . These types of testable theories are to be contrasted with the
"pseudo-hypothesis." That's a so-called theory that cannot be tested. It also does not make predictions, because any conceivable result can be "explained" by referring back to the infinitely flexible "theory".
. . "God made the world and has intentionally directed everything that has happened" is a pseudo-hypothesis. It may emotionally and spiritually satisfying. It may even be true. But it's untestable and makes no useful predictions, so it doesn't qualify as a scientific hypothesis. More borderline are constructs such as Freudian theory.
. . Fleishman and Pons' theory of cold fusion is also a testable scientific hypothesis. So far, subsequent research hasn't replicated the initial results.
. . The origins of the hypothesis are irrelevant. What matters is whether it could, in theory, be tested, and whether it makes testable predictions.
~gschwed
Perhaps I am approaching this the wrong way. Let me demonstrate what I mean by valid and correct using logic constructions.
The following construction is valid and correct:
1) Assumption: All humans are mammals.
2) Assumption: All mammals have hair.
3) Therefore, all humans have hair.
The following is valid but incorrect: (The logic is valid, but the assumptions are incorrect)
1) Assumption: All humans wear hats.
2) Assumption: All mammals are human.
3) Therefore, all mammals wear hats.
The following is invalid but correct: (The logic is wrong, but the
conclusion is correct)
1) Assumption: All humans have hair.
2) Assumption: All mammals have hair.
3) Therefore, all humans are mammals.
The following is invalid and incorrect:
1) Assumption: All humans wear hats.
2) Assumption: All mammals wear hats.
3) Therefore, all animals play like ice cream.
. . Now let's draw the parallel between these examples and scientific theories. The cladists theories are well constructed. It is theoretically possible to bring evidence against the theories in an attempt to refute the theory, that is, they are falsifiable. This means that the theories are valid (just like the first to logic constructs). However, the evidence may or may not support the verity of the theories. The theory could be a valid theory but still be incorrect.
. . There is a difference between a valid argument and veracious argument.
Our point is that there aren't even any scientific theories concerning God.
. . All theories to date are meaningless because no evidence can be brought to bear against them. They stand in a void and are worse than useless.
. . They aren't even valid theories. There CAN'T be any evidence for or against the existence of God, since the theory itself is not falsifiable.
You can't DETERMINE if the theory is correct or not unless you can pit evidence against it. Falsification is not a yardstick of whether the theory is correct or not. It is a yardstick of whether the theory can be SHOWN to be correct or not.
. . Falsification means being able to support your theory by evidence, or refuting it by evidence. The main thing is that the evidence can be brought to bear in a meaningful way. If there is theorectically no evidence that can falsify a theory, then there is no evidence that can support it.
. . Suppose my theory is that "God did it". I could support that theory with any evidence I choose. How did this apple get here? God did it. But isn't there evidence that says that the apple grew on a tree? Yes, God did that too. But what about evidence that the tree required water and nourishment to produce the apple? Well, God did it. See? The evidence to support that theory is abundant, but it is useless. There is no possible evidence that it can be contrasted against.
. . To be meaningful, the theory has to determine that there is evidence that would support the theory and evidence that would refute the theory, then the search is begun to determine which evidence exists (or the theory is based on existing observation, and the search is begun for supporting or conflicting evidence).
All evidence in the world can be fitting to coincide with the "God did it" theory, so all evidence is meaningless. If we discovered the moon was made of rock, we can say "God did it". If we discovered that the moon was made of green cheese, we can say "God did it". There is no possible evidence that would matter either way. The theory is invalid because it is not falsifiable.
. . nondescript (early Jan, 01)
While scientific theories need both falsifiability and a preponderance of evidence to be seen as strong, they only need the falsifiable part to be seen as a proper theory. ~schrafinator
It is standard practice for anyone writing up a paper of their research to include in the text alternate explanations of the data which differ from the authors' conclusions. This usually consists of past and current research which contradicts the paper's conclusions. You probably would not be published if you did not include, what essentially breaks down to a list of ways you could be wrong. Allison
gschwed 12/4/00:
Falsifiability is at the core of scientific method. Karl Popper may have been wrong about other stuff, but he got it right here. For example, Freudian psychology is fascinating, but it probably isn't a scientific theory. Freudianism is just too all-encompassing, too facile in finding explanations for all possible behaviors. Presumably, Freudianism should be able to "predict" a child's future behavior arising from, say, a domineering mother. But if that child in fact grows up entirely differently than "predicted", well, then it's dismissed as a "reaction formation." So the theory is non-falsifiable (also known as a pseudo-hypothesis).
schrafinator (32/F/Southeast MI) 12/4/00"
Falsifiability is a basic scientific standard by which any theory has to include scientific ways in which it would be rendered false. Because anybody can just say, when they can't explain something naturalistically, "It happened by magic", or "God just made it that way". Falsifiability has always been a part of why science is evidence-based rather than belief-based. This is why it is anything but "out of vogue".
When scientists adjust a theory due to new evidence, by contrast, the adjustment itself must be falsifiable as well.
"I am continually told, "You can't prove this, you can't prove that", but I never claim that I can. Now you keep saying, "You can't falsify this, you can't falsify that", which is another thing I never claim. My consistent stance is that I propose not new science. I try to interpret in a rational way what science is telling us abut reality." Vic Stenger
But the absolute basic point is, for a theory to classify as science, there must be a concievable way to prove it wrong. Not be able to now, just be able to somehow, some day.
. . If it can never, under any circumstances, be shown wrong, it has no place in science. Falsifiability remains a central requirement for a scientific theory.
. . All falsifiability says, is that for a theory to fall in the realms of science, there must be a way to show it false. Whether that is one example of many is not the point. If it could be shown false, it is a valid scientific theory. If nothing in the universe could disprove it, it is just not science. That does not mean it is not a valid theory, it just means it is not science. ra500001 12/5/00
I point out the two versions of creation in Genesis and label the order in each. That only slows them down a little since they don't understand the implications of contradictions.
. . The most fun is helping them uphold their high moral values they get from Levitican law. I point out that stoning a disobedient child to death is the law of God. I ask them how many people they have killed, as God commanded, for working on the Sabbath. There are a few more good ones too. I also point out the abomination of only keeping part of God's law. They don't like that and it shuts them up. Joe Needham
Non-falsifiablilty means there is no conceivable way to show the theory wrong.
It does not matter if there currently is no way to test it. All that matters is that there is theorectically a way to test it.
Another example is Einstein's theory of relativity. When the theory came out, there was no way to test parts of it, such as the time discrepancies that occur between clocks here on Earth and those in space (due to the gravity well). However, his theories were still considered falsifiable. It just took a while before we had clocks accurate enough to measure the effect.
Richard Feynman once said of the idea that the cosmos is simply here in order for some deity to "test" humanity: "I cannot believe such a thing. The stage is too big for the actors."
brianvds 12/10/00: So what's the problem then? Nobody is that naive. With "falsifiable" we simply mean "testable."
Because there are people who use it as a higher standard where just one instance of a theory being proven false invalidates the whole theory. jneedham 12/10/00
Newton's theory has been amended with the statement "within certain limits". That makes it correct again. It has dropped from being a universal theory to one that only works within limits. The idea that it is universal has been thrown out. It has been replaced by the idea that it works "within certain limits".
. . The theory that X exists can never refuted. No matter where you show X not existing, you could claim that it exists elsewhere. That theory is, therefore, not falsifiable.
. . That type of theory, without evidence of existence, is fantasy. nondescript
If it, inherently, cannot be falsified (not the same thing as "proven false"), then it isn't really science. God does not have an unambiguous definition, therefore anything can be attributed to it. It, inherently, is not falsifiable.
You could say that math is a science, based on the counting of things, but that is a trivial distinction. It is really different from science. Math is used to build theorectical models that may be wholly imaginary, and not based on actual evidence. Models are useful in science to describe scientific theories. Black holes were not discovered by math. They were discovered by scientist who noted that if observable evidence continues to follow a certain mathematical model, then black holes may exist. Note that the main evidence is still observable evidence, not math. Math is just used as a tool to figure out what the extreme condition might be. Note also that scientists really did not embrace the idea of black holes until there was some direct evidence of them. Models are only good so far.
. . Physics is not math. Physics uses math. There is a difference.
. . Paranormal claims and fringe science are not even at the point where you can judge them true or false. They are largely undefined. "Nondescript"
Basically, Newton said that A+B=C. Einstein said that, in fact, A+B+Q=C, but Q is very very small in normal gravities and normal speeds. So people tend to just use A+B=C, because Q is difficult to figure out and doesn't add much to the function unless you are approaching the speed of light.
. . math is most definately NOT science, because math is not empirical.>>
. . And, by implication, is wrong because it is not?
. . No, it's not wrong. It's just not, in and of itself, science. It is pure, abstract, speculation which can be applied to *illustrate* real world phenomena. It can also be used in a purely speculative way. Math can be performed using any set of assumptions you like, and the math is still valid. This is not the case in science.
. . Science is a methodology, not a philosophy. schrafinator 12/12/00
If you got here from the HOME PAGE, click on
"minimize" or "eXit". (upper right browser buttons)
If you didn't: the site.)