FALSIFIABLITY AND LOGIC FAQ


FALSIFIABLITY
AND
LOGIC FAQ

What is non-falsifiable does not fit in the realm of science. It can not be proved to be true nor untrue.
. A number of logicians maintain that no assertion can claim to be true unless it is "falsifiable." They recognize that not every idea can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. But if it is the kind of statement that can claim to be true, it must be susceptible--if only hypothetically--to evidence that might disprove it.
. It may not be possible to prove that light is the fastest thing in the universe, but if something were found that was faster, the claim would be disproven. A statement such as "light is the consciousness of the universe" not only can't be proven; there is no conceivable way one could come up with evidence against it. It can't be verified, and it can't be falsified. Therefore, strictly speaking, it doesn't make sense, and we don't need to take it seriously.
Falsifiable [talkorigins.org jargon file ]
. (adj) 1. As prescribed by Karl Popper, the property which is required for a theory(1) to be scientific. There must be some test which can be performed that will indicate that the theory is wrong. For example, the flat-Earth theory can be falsified by circumnavigating the planet; the theory is thus scientific, although falsified. Despite recent Creationist legal and propaganda tactics, evolution is falsifiable.
.
"Hypotheses are single tentative guesses--good hunches--assumed for use in devising theory or planning experiment, intended to be given a direct experimental test when possible." (Eric M. Rogers, "Physics for the Inquiring Mind." (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1966)
"There are other inhabited planets in the universe."

This hypothesis is testable, but it is not a scientific hypothesis. Here's why. Hypothesis B may be either correct or wrong. If it is correct, there are several ways that it's correctness can be proven, including:


. 1. A space probe sent from earth to explore the universe sends back the news that it has discovered an inhabited planet. (This news is later confirmed by other space probes.)
. 2. Radio telescopes on earth begin to received signals from somewhere in the Andromeda Galaxy that appear to be reruns of the "I Love Telek" show.
. 3. Knock, Knock. "Greetings, earthling! I am Telek from the planet Zoron in the Andromeda Galaxy. I have just landed in your backyard. Take me to your leader."

So, if Hypothesis B is true, there are observations that scientists could make that would prove its correctness. But, the hypothesis may be wrong. (Most hypotheses are...) If Hypothesis B is wrong, there is no test that will prove it. If one of our space probes never finds an inhabited planet, it doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. If we never receive signals from space, or Telek never lands in your back yard, that does not prove that the hypothesis is wrong, either. Hypothesis B is not falsifiable.

Note that it is very easy to prove Hypothesis C wrong (if it were), but it is impossible to prove it correct! Since Hypothesis C states that any pair of objects behaves in a certain way, in order to prove it correct, all possible combinations of objects that exist (or have ever, or will ever exist) must be tested. This is clearly not possible. As we test Hypothesis C more and more, we can get more and more confident in its truth, but we can never be absolutely sure. Someone could always come up with 2 objects tomorrow which don't behave exactly as Hypothesis C says they should, and this would make Hypothesis C incorrect.

Hypothesis D: "This big object right here and this little object right there will hit the ground at the same time when I drop them from the same height."

Hypothesis D is a scientific hypothesis - it is testable, and it is falsifiable. There are two problems with it, however:

. 1. It is a very wimpy hypothesis. Compared to Hypothesis C, which is quite powerful and useful, Hypothesis D is practically useless, and;
. 2. Hypothesis D can't be proven correct, either! Who is to say that someone won't show up tomorrow with some brand new, super-sophisticated, high-tech measuring instrument and say "Look! My measuring device clearly shows that the little object hits the ground fully a half a trillionth of a second before the big one." The best we can ever say (as scientists) is something like, "It certainly appears to me at this time that both objects hit the ground at the same time.
. Even timid little Hypothesis D cannot be proven to be absolutely true!
. In science, if there is a conflict between observation and hypothesis, the hypothesis loses.

Yes, Virginia...
. William of Occam was a medieval scholar and logician, and, in modern form, the principle that has come to be known as Occam's Razor says: If two hypotheses can't be distinguished experimentally, choose the simpler one.
. Sir Peter Medawar: "The truth is not in nature waiting to declare itself, and we cannot know a priori which observations are relevant and which are not: every discovery, every enlargement of the understanding begins as an imaginative preconception of what the truth might be.
. By the way...
Just because a hypothesis is not scientific does not mean that no scientist will ever investigate it. e.g. "SETI"
Deductive Method is used in Mathematics. Inductive Methods (Scientific Methods) are used in science.
  • An observation is something you notice
  • An experiment is a formal observation
  • A fact is a widely-agreed-upon observation
  • A conclusion is a decision based on observations
  • An hypothesis is an educated guess
  • A law (principle) describes nature's behavior
  • A theory (model) explains nature's behavior

    In order to use the deductive method, you need to start with axioms--simple true statements about the way the world works. Then you use these axioms to build your logical system of nature. If your axioms are true, everything that follows will be true, but Galileo and his contemporaries realized that the problem was that it was enormously difficult to determine "simple true statements about the way the world works". In fact, they realized that it should be the goal of science--not the starting place--to determine what the "simple true statements about the way the world works" really are!

    Since 1600, the inductive method has been incredibly successful in investigating nature--surely far more successful than its originators could have imagined. The inductive method of investigation has become so entrenched in science that it is often referred to as the scientific method.

    Inductive vs. Deductive Method

    The inductive method (usually called the scientific method) is the deductive method "turned upside down". The deductive method starts with a few true statements (axioms) with the goal of proving many true statements (theorems) that logically follow from them. The inductive method starts with many observations of nature, with the goal of finding a few, powerful statements about how nature works (laws and theories).
    . In the deductive method, logic is the authority. If a statement follows logically from the axioms of the system, it must be true. In the scientific method, observation of nature is the authority. If an idea conflicts with what happens in nature, the idea must be changed or abandoned.
    . "Here is the crucial situation of the scientific method. A single new scientific fact disagreeing with the theory completely invalidates the theory. The willingness to give up an old established theory as soon as it is proved to be definitely inconsistent with a single scientific fact is the attitude of Science; no branch of knowledge without this attitude can be called a science." Boris Podolsky, "What is science?"

    If you got here from the HOME PAGE, click on
    "minimize" or "eXit". (upper right browser buttons)
    If you didn't: the site.)