Yeah, sure, ‘falsifiable’ in the loose sense absolutely. Not in the ‘probability is 0’ sense though, not at all.
If a theory requires that something must always occur, it can be falsified absolutely.
An example would be the theory that states that an electrically neutral mass will always attract other mass.
If even a single incident can be shown where such did not happen, the theory is 100% false.
I’ve linked you to this before:
0 and 1 are not probabilities
It LITERALLY takes INFINITELY strong evidence to reach certainty.
That’s not like me trying to exaggerate how much evidence it takes.
That literal – I mean ‘infinitely’ literally. It’s mathematically demonstrable.
So, no logically possible theory can be shown to have a probability of 0. It can be shown to have an incredibly, incredibly, incredibly low probability, 0.0 followed by an astronomical number of 0s followed by a 1, whatever you want. It can’t be 0 though. You can round to 0 if you want, for simplicity’s sake, but it can’t be 0.
Try to realize that you just theorized that it is 100% certain that no theory can be 100% certain.
What is true by definition is 100% true… although perhaps useless, depending on the definitions involved.
Did you forget that I said there’s an exception for things that are logically impossible? You must have. Let me remind you:
That’s what I said. Add to that exception things that are logically necessary as well.
The theory itself is mathematically provable, so may be within the exception listed, as well as things ‘true by definition’, so I think I’m doing alright on that count.
And science doesn’t tend to deal with things that are demonstrable or disprovable ‘by definition’. If it did, we wouldn’t need experiments, we’d merely need to consult the definitions.
In reality, that is all Science has ever dealt with.
How can Science claim that an event has definitely occurred, if it doesn’t definitely define the event?
And you are merely (once again) thinking that this is about you being right or wrong. I am talking about what is correct, with or without you being right or wrong concerning it. And with that in mind, regardless of what you just said,
That which is true by definition is 100% true.
A = A
not
A perhaps = A
Idk what you’re on about any more. You’re on your own trip. I doubt you’ll find much agreement among actual scientists that science only deals with things that are true by definition. Doesn’t sound like science to me.
That would only be because scientists are technicians who generally have no idea of the epistemology behind what they do.
But it wouldn’t take much debate from me to convince them.
“You have to define what an electron is before you can say that you observed one.”
The “scientist” who says that isn’t true, isn’t worth listening to.
K bro.
Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled programming.
Hi Flannel Jesus,
I like your answer, and had not thought of it myself. Some times I wonder if Wittgenstein might modify his comment about not speaking if he understood Bayesian Statistics.
The reason that I mentioned your name was because, on a similar thread you seemed to relate to the point that falsification was relative to context.
Anyway, I am going to blather on now.
Theories are sentences or groups of sentences that are based on underlying structures. These structures can be thought of as context in logic, ontologies in philosophy, or technical structures in mathematical Model theory. The words from which the theories are composed come from this underlying structure.
However, the same words exist in differing structures. Depending on the structure a given theory can be either true or false.
Some examples:
From the Copernican model (This is one of the standard examples given on falsification):
- Early underlying context:
Motion only takes place in the direction of the moving object.
Theory:
As a corollary to the Copernican model the Earth must rotate on its axis.
Experiment:
Drop a ball from a tall building.
Result:
Ball does not move away from building.
Conclusion:
Earth does not rotate – The Copernican model is falsified.
From mathematical Model Theory:
- Structure:
The Whole number system with the operation of multiplication
Experiment:
Find a number N such that 2xN = 3.
Result:
No such number exists
Now change the context/structure in 1 to:
Motion is vector in form:
Experiment: Drop a ball from a tall building
Result:
Ball does not move away from the building
Conclusion:
Since the ball has a horizontal velocity component it should not move away from the building, the finding is consistent with Copernican theory. (Note: It does not confirm or prove the Copernican Theory).
Now change the context/structure in 2 to:
The Rational numbers with the operation of multiplication
Experiment:
Find a number N such that 2xN = 3.
Result:
The Rational number N = 2/3 is a valid solution.
One last example form Science:
Middle underlying context:
Motion is vector in form.
Experiment:
Determine the total speed of a plane, if the plane is flying due East at 700 Km per hour and there is an Easterly wind at 150 Km per hour.
Result:
The total velocity is 750 + 150/(1 + (750 + 150)/ c * c))
Here we have appeared to falsify our middle underlying context, though there are likely to be other explanations.
At this point Science has had at least three different contexts, or philosophically three different ontologies, to describe motion.
Conclusion:
Falsification of a theory generally depends on the underlying structure or context. One might be able to falsify a given theory with regard to a specific structure, but that does not mean that the theory is falsified with regard to another structure or context.
Opinion:
Since there are a number of unanswered questions, relative to our current understanding of our empirical world, it seems to me to be likely that our assumed contexts will again change over time. My personal guess is that we will not even end up with a single context and in fact that is the case with our models today.
The main reason that I wanted to note that a theory could not generally be falsified was to move the pendulum back from the recent major historical swings of all theory (as an example the big movement to string theory 30 years ago or so) to all experiment (nothing can be true if it is not experimentally confirmed). The middle ground is a better place to be. It seems to me that we are in serious need of more theory at this point.
Hi James,
You have given a good counter example and I can not even think of an alternative structure in which the statement can be made to be true.
I guess that all I can say is that generally a theory can not be falsified.
On the stopped clock paradox:
Since it is off topic and it is a significant discussion, I would rather not get into it now. I will only say that we both see a paradox with regard to Special Relativity. The difference between us appears to be that I generally accept Special Relativity and you don’t.
Ed
Ed3, I think that you are confusing the ability to make mistakes with the inability to know that you haven’t.
And also confusing the issue of falsifiability with that of absolute proofing.
A proof is a lack of alternatives to the conclusion.
For a theory to be falsifiable, there must be a means to prove it false if it actually was false.
That means that the theory must be stated in such a way as to provide a conceivable means to prove it false if it is false.
A non-falsifiable theory might be something like, “apples fall from trees because invisible fairies cut the stems”.
Is there any conceivable way to prove that invisible fairies are NOT actually doing that?
The invisible fairy theory always allows for the fairies to change their mind and thus no matter what results you get, you still haven’t proven anything and thus the theory is not falsifiable.
In the case of the spinning Earth theory;
Is there any conceivable way to prove (provide a lack of alternatives) that the Earth is NOT spinning if it actually isn’t?
Many people might come up with invalid or presumptuous proofs (such as the one you provided).
But that doesn’t equate to not ever being able to prove that the Earth is not spinning.
It might take centuries to come up with a practical valid proof, but it is possible and thus the theory is falsifiable (eventually).
In the example that you gave, someone was being presumptuously thinking that the spin of the Earth would be the only concern in the hypothesis. A bad hypothesis does not equate to a proof in any direction.
As per my example, the theory that 2+2=3 has a means to be proven wrong if it is wrong and thus is a falsifiable theory.
As far as being dependent upon substructures, every thought is dependent upon substructures and that is why it gets difficult to arrange the total lack of alternatives. But it is not impossible just as that example demonstrates. My Rational Metaphysics is very falsifiable and yet incontrovertible.
But as FJ mentioned, it is usually a matter of being reasonable such as to obtain an extremely high probability of a theory being true or false rather than the absolute proof concern. That makes things much easier for the homosapian brain.
The issue of falsifiability is a separate issue than that of absolute proofing.
Unless the word “truth” stands for “reliable information” about laws of nature, information that allows us to produce airplanes, antibiotics, microwave ovens, nuclear reactors, etc.
.
I am a retired physics teacher. I used to tell students that the relation F=ma, for example, is true (to the limit of accuracy with which it can be verified in practice). I do not feel guilty about not telling them that the F=ma is true. The Einstein’s relativistic correction was introduced much later, as in most textbooks.
Yes indeed.
I would not go so far.
Again, I would not go so far. But this is an interesting topic.
Yes, your description of three-levels of specialization–technicians, engineers and scientists–is correct. I am familiar with problems; I became an electronic engineer before I became a scientist. We are one team; we depend on each other.
Thank you for food for thoughts.
Science I think is what is provable empircially, philosophy deals with questions of what is an isn’t provable or what is and isn’t solved, absolutely or not and even if it can be, and even what can be remotely close to anything true. Of course people who can prove nothing will claim science is something else but these are the real anathemas to science, the people who claim to have it all figured out but don’t seem to want to put themselves out there in a way that would be verified by evidence. These are the real enemies of reason, these are the frauds. You can claim whatever you like but unless you have an experiment, or at least ever want to do one, you are basically just talking out of your hat. Interpretations are ten a penny, I have seen them all, but pure philosophy is no substitute for actual science, nor is claiming science is wrong with no evidence, nor is saying there is some conspiracy to keep the truth down.
Real scientists are out there working hard to prove what they say, the chancers are probably sitting back smoking a pipe and like some people on this medium I will not mention, posting on this forum, and not actually doing anything but arm waving. Great if you like talking about things you never intend to remotely back up but that is not science, that will probably serve you well not in the slightest when you are long gone, and no on cites anything you ever say 'cause it was just words repeated, all fury but sounding off of a brass wall. Like a gong without a hammer, and you shouting at it like some lemon.
Science is evidence, experiment and logical conjecture on results obtained therein, without it it is just noise, some of it may be valuable but we do need a means to cut out the white noise from the more substantial sounds. A medium where philosophy is valuable as well as science a gestalt producing more likelihood of something cohernet than a single entity.
If you don’t like experiment, then try theoretical science, no one has as yet has ever won a Nobel prize for purely theoretical science. If that is your thing, fine but don’t pretend you have done experimental or even any verifiable science by talking about things rather than doing something to prove they are even remotely based in the real world. It’s clearly sophistry, and it’s clearly a waste of time for anyone who wants to challenge the concerns of real science. And let’s face it no one gets so much praise as those wo destroy a paradigm. It’s every scientists dream to knock down the walls, and go down in history (ok not all scientists, some are herders and like the status quo, it’s the same anywhere, but I would suggest they are not the best scientistis). Science is wrong about everything, it always has been, but to show that you can’t just post something you thought about for a bit, and then expect that to be in lieu of evidence, proof that you have all the answers.
“Don’t follow a trail, make your own.”
A quote all real scientists should follow. Although they probably should map that new trail cause otherwise anyone else trying to follow it will get lost.