Falsifiability is not the scientific method

[Cyrene]

When it didn’t pass the scientific method, when it didn’t pass statistical trials for clinical significance and researchers knew it. That has to do with human error, not science.

“hahaha”

yeah real funny, idiot.

[ladyjane]

When it didn’t pass the scientific method, when it didn’t pass statistical trials for clinical significance and researchers knew it. That has to do with human error, not science.

it passed the FDA scientific method
and Eli Lilly

so much for a scientific method
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Cyrene]

The “FDA” is a human organization run by humans with errors in judgement. The FDA can certainly accept nonscience by ignoring the evidence from double-blind trials. When a team of independent researchers can take the information from the FDA and say that it doesn’t meet clinical significance, then its not a failing of science but of the individuals in organization X who suppressed the information.

Anyway. Here’s your reply.

“blah blah, there is no scientific method. HAHAHAHA”

I’ ve seen a mentally handicapped dog once that couldn’t be taught tricks and almost died from inhaling dogfood into its lungs. You’re the human version of that dog.

[ladyjane]

physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/16478

Popper’s principle is beloved by crusaders against junk- and pseudo-science, for it simplifies demarcation. But, however attractive Popper’s falsifiability principle might sound, it is not good philosophy of science…

The history of science is replete with examples that show Popper’s principle to be wrong.

no suppressing of evidence here

Abstract — In November 1919 it was announced to the world that observations of a solar eclipse that occurred in May 1919 supported Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity. That announcement was one of the most influential events of 20th-century science, since Einstein’s instant rise to enormous fame arose directly from it. In spite of the confidence with which the announcement was made, however, it was later realized that the accuracy of the observations was insufficient to constitute a reliable confirmation of the phenomenon that was predicted. Furthermore, another of the formulas published in the general theory, for the variation in the perihelion of the planet Mercury, had already been derived by another scientist several years earlier using another method. In spite of the fact that the experimental evidence for relativity seems to have been very flimsy in 1919, Einstein’s enormous fame has remained intact and his theory has ever since been held to be one of the highest achievements of human thought.

[MagsJ (Surya Loka.. triumvirate)]

@Cyrene

Anyway. Here’s your reply.

“blah blah, there is no scientific method. HAHAHAHA”

I’ ve seen a mentally handicapped dog once that couldn’t be taught tricks and almost died from inhaling dogfood into its lungs. You’re the human version of that dog.

that has to be the best retort I have ever heard, and it was sent to a well-deserved recipient, too!

[Randy_Burgher]

Anybody who rails against falsifiability is either an obscurantist pomo clown or a faithhead.

[ladyjane]

Anybody who rails against falsifiability is either an obscurantist pomo clown or a faithhead.

if you want read the history of science then dont comment

physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/16478

The history of science is replete with examples that show Popper’s principle to be wrong.

Popper’s principle is beloved by crusaders against junk- and pseudo-science, for it simplifies demarcation. But, however attractive Popper’s falsifiability principle might sound, it is not good philosophy of science…

[aporia]

colin leslie dean, you haven’t even explained to us what you mean by falsifiability. can you explain it to us in a few sentences? and show how the cited articles are relevant to your definition?

[ladyjane]

colin leslie dean, you haven’t even explained to us what you mean by falsifiability. can you explain it to us in a few sentences? and show how the cited articles are relevant to your definition?

well we can use wiki as a quick reference
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Some philosophers and scientists, most notably Karl Popper, have asserted that a hypothesis, proposition or theory is scientific only if it is falsifiable.

Falsifiability (or refutability or testability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment.

now note einsiens theory was falsified by observation but it was not abandoned

Abstract — In November 1919 it was announced to the world that observations of a solar eclipse that occurred in May 1919 supported Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity. That announcement was one of the most influential events of 20th-century science, since Einstein’s instant rise to enormous fame arose directly from it. In spite of the confidence with which the announcement was made, however, it was later realized that the accuracy of the observations was insufficient to constitute a reliable confirmation of the phenomenon that was predicted. Furthermore, another of the formulas published in the general theory, for the variation in the perihelion of the planet Mercury, had already been derived by another scientist several years earlier using another method. In spite of the fact that the experimental evidence for relativity seems to have been very flimsy in 1919, Einstein’s enormous fame has remained intact and his theory has ever since been held to be one of the highest achievements of human thought.

[aporia]

for a theory x to be falsifiable it is not required that x be abandoned if some experiment seems to imply x false
it is only required that it is possible to conduct an experiment which might disprove it
whether the experiment succeeds in disproof is up to the interpretation of the scientists
otherwise i could just fart and announce that that disproves relativity lol

[ladyjane]

for a theory x to be falsifiable it is not required that x be abandoned if some experiment seems to imply x false
it is only required that it is possible to conduct an experiment which might disprove it
whether the experiment succeeds in disproof is up to the interpretation of the scientists
otherwise i could just fart and announce that that disproves relativity lol

the wiki quote clearly says shown to be false

Falsifiability (or refutability or testability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment.

and einstiens theory was shown to be false
but it was not abandoned

[aporia]

your quotes do not indicate that einsteins theory was shown false
only that one experiment seemed to contradict it
what if the experimenter screwed up
i could toss a pencil in the air now and do a bad measurement of its speed
or do a bad calculation
so that my result is it went faster than speed of light
does that mean einstein was wrong??? lol

[ladyjane]

your quotes do not indicate that einsteins theory was shown false
only that one experiment seemed to contradict it

the source says

In spite of the fact that the experimental evidence for relativity seems to have been very flimsy in 1919,

and

it was later realized that the accuracy of the observations was insufficient to constitute a reliable confirmation of the phenomenon that was predicted.

so based on falsification the theory should have been abandoned- it was not

[aporia]

falsification does not say that we should abandon any theory that has flimsy evidence or lacks reliable confirmation
falsification only says that a theory can in principle be disproven
read your own source

@Wikipedia

Falsifiability (or refutability or testability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment.

quote does not say anything about flimsy evidence
quote does not say anything about lacks reliable confirmation
quote only says falsifiable theory can be shown false
einsteins theory can be shown false hence it is falsifiable
it does not depend on whether scientists abandon it or not, that is up to their interpretation of the experiment and theory
like i said if i do a bad experiment to prove einstein wrong that doesn’t mean we have to abandon einstein

[ladyjane]

falsification does not say that we should abandon any theory that has flimsy evidence or lacks reliable confirmation
falsification only says that a theory can in principle be disproven
read your own source

quote only says falsifiable theory can be disproven

and einstiens theory was shown to be false
and if it is false that means it is abandoned
or are you saying a theory can be false but still used
if so all the false theories in science can now be al used again

[aporia]

einsteins theory was not shown false
only some experimenter thought he might have shown it false
maybe he did a bad experiment
so einstein is falsifiable but not shown false
you understand the difference between “can be shown false” and “is shown false” right???

[ladyjane]

einsteins theory was not shown false

read the words prediction was falsified by observation

it was later realized that the accuracy of the observations was insufficient to constitute a reliable confirmation of the phenomenon that was predicted.

In spite of the fact that the experimental evidence for relativity seems to have been very flimsy in 1919

[aporia]

i see nowhere in those words “prediction was falsified by observation”
only see that evidence was flimsy and did not confirm theory, not that evidence showed theory false

do you have secret reading powers
or maybe there is invisible computer screen ink
or maybe you do not understand the difference between “confirm”, “fail to confirm”, and “show false”
“fail to confirm” means the theory was neither shown true nor shown false
so it is still under examination

[ladyjane]

i see nowhere in those words “prediction was falsified by observation”

read
prediction was not validated by observation

observations was insufficient to constitute a reliable confirmation of the phenomenon that was predicted

[aporia]

lol you really don’t know the difference do you
ok listen
there is a difference between (1) “not shown true” and (2) “shown not true”
suppose i have 2 pockets and i claim i have 20 dollars in my pocket
then you search my left pocket and don’t find 20 dollars
then my claim is (1) “not shown true” by your search of my left pocket
however if you search my right pocket you find the 20 dollars
so my claim is NOT (2) “shown not true” since my claim is in fact true

if this confuses you i can make it australian dollars lol