Help with falsifiability!

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Help with falsifiability!

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Prof Bulani wrote: February 14th, 2020, 9:22 am Without a definition for God, the search for empirical evidence cannot occur. What evidence would you look for if God isn't defined? How would you know if you've found evidence? The definition tells you what evidence to look for. It even tells you if evidence exists or not.
I would begin by searching for anything that looked like it had something to do with supernatural beings, or unexplained phenomena, like 'miracles'. Human beings are very good - very good indeed - at vaguely-defined tasks such as this. Lacking precision of definition, we fall back instead on the intrinsic skills of human beings.

But the problem is that, even if we did as I describe, we would find nothing. Nothing at all. Nor would we find any evidence to cast doubt on God's existence. For there is no spacetime-universe scientific evidence available, nor will there be. You mention definitions, again and again, but you pay no attention to this. Even something that can be precisely defined in every detail cannot be scientifically/logically investigated if there is no evidence.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Prof Bulani
Posts: 367
Joined: December 1st, 2019, 3:47 pm

Re: Help with falsifiability!

Post by Prof Bulani »

Pattern-chaser wrote: February 14th, 2020, 10:03 am
Prof Bulani wrote: February 14th, 2020, 9:22 am What is an example of what you may consider "evidence pertaining to God's existence"?
An example? 🤔 A photograph. [ Other forms of evidence are available. ]
If someone showed you a photograph of God, how would you know it was photograph of God?
"The purpose of life is to survive and replicate" - Erik von Markovik
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Help with falsifiability!

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Prof Bulani wrote: February 14th, 2020, 10:47 am If someone showed you a photograph of God, how would you know it was photograph of God?
That is certainly part of the problem. But the real point is that there is no evidence, nor can there ever be any, so there are no photographs, videos or anything else of the sort.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Prof Bulani
Posts: 367
Joined: December 1st, 2019, 3:47 pm

Re: Help with falsifiability!

Post by Prof Bulani »

Pattern-chaser wrote: February 14th, 2020, 2:38 pm
Prof Bulani wrote: February 14th, 2020, 10:47 am If someone showed you a photograph of God, how would you know it was photograph of God?
That is certainly part of the problem. But the real point is that there is no evidence, nor can there ever be any, so there are no photographs, videos or anything else of the sort.
You cannot make that claim unless you can first distinguish between what evidence for God is and what it isn't. And you have no means of making such a distinction.
"The purpose of life is to survive and replicate" - Erik von Markovik
Wossname
Posts: 429
Joined: January 31st, 2020, 10:41 am

Re: Help with falsifiability!

Post by Wossname »

Steve3007 wrote: February 14th, 2020, 6:21 am Wossname wrote:
All Xs are like the ones we have seen
...is a proposition that cannot be verified with certainty in finite time because verifying it would require observing every member of an arbitrarily large/potentially infinite set, called "all Xs".
Agreed. Isn't this why Popper made falsification the criteria for scientific statements and scientific theories are only contingently true (i.e. provisionally accepted, for now, until evidence shows they are not true)?
Wossname
Posts: 429
Joined: January 31st, 2020, 10:41 am

Re: Help with falsifiability!

Post by Wossname »

Pattern-chaser wrote: February 14th, 2020, 9:04 am
Wossname wrote: February 14th, 2020, 5:59 am

Pattern-chaser that certainly had me thinking. I think you are right. Science requires an unfalsifiable statement must be verified by evidence.
My understanding (and I might be wrong) is as follows:

In science “X exists” is a scientific statement if, in principle, it can be empirically verified. Until it is verified, it is not accepted as true. If “a black swan exists” is never verified it is never accepted as true.

All Xs are like the ones we have seen is (unless untrue by definition, i.e. any difference disqualifies other examples from being Xs) is a contingent truth. (E.g. all swans are white). That is, the statement can be accepted as true for now, provided we can in principle prove it wrong. If it can’t be proved wrong, it’s not a scientific statement.

Does this seem right?
No, I don't think so. It is falsification, not verification, that underpins science and the scientific method. As you say later: "If it can’t be proved wrong" i.e. falsified - "it’s not a scientific statement". 👍 But scientific statements are never accepted as true, they are working 'truths' that have not yet been falsified.
If you can't show a thing exists how can it be a scientific claim that it does?
This is why science emphasises the need for empirical evidence. You say purple elephants exist I say why should I believe it? You show me a purple elephant. Now I believe it. You have proved it true. Although, in science, others must be able to see said elephant too (inter-subjective testability). If you can't show me it, I don't believe it. No empirical evidence.

I see a couple of purple elephants and form the view that "all elephants are purple". It doesn't matter how many elephants I see in support of this view I can't prove it true. Maybe there are pink elephants somewhere. (This is sounding like Friday night alright). But "all elephants are purple can be accepted as true for now (a contingent truth) until such time as a pink or other coloured elephant proves the statement wrong. Falsification applies to general statements, scientific theories are general statements, and that is why falsification is important. If I can't, in principle, disprove "all elephants are purple", it's not a scientific statement.

What say you?
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Help with falsifiability!

Post by Steve3007 »

Wossname wrote:Agreed. Isn't this why Popper made falsification the criteria for scientific statements and scientific theories are only contingently true (i.e. provisionally accepted, for now, until evidence shows they are not true)?
Yes. But I wouldn't put it like that myself. General Relativity (for example) didn't render Newton's theory of Universal Gravitation untrue. It's still used all the time. It simply meant that the latter is a special case and the former a more general case. i.e the latter works for a particular subset of all possible observations. The former works for a larger subset which contains the subset relating to the latter.

Same for something like the Standard Model of Particle Physics (which encompasses Quantum Mechanics). It doesn't render Maxwell's Equations of classical electromagnetism untrue. It contains them as a special case. They can be derived from the Standard Model, just as Newton's theories can be derived from Relativity.
Wossname
Posts: 429
Joined: January 31st, 2020, 10:41 am

Re: Help with falsifiability!

Post by Wossname »

Steve3007 wrote: February 15th, 2020, 5:05 am Wossname wrote:
Agreed. Isn't this why Popper made falsification the criteria for scientific statements and scientific theories are only contingently true (i.e. provisionally accepted, for now, until evidence shows they are not true)?
Yes. But I wouldn't put it like that myself. General Relativity (for example) didn't render Newton's theory of Universal Gravitation untrue. It's still used all the time. It simply meant that the latter is a special case and the former a more general case. i.e the latter works for a particular subset of all possible observations. The former works for a larger subset which contains the subset relating to the latter.

Same for something like the Standard Model of Particle Physics (which encompasses Quantum Mechanics). It doesn't render Maxwell's Equations of classical electromagnetism untrue. It contains them as a special case. They can be derived from the Standard Model, just as Newton's theories can be derived from Relativity.
If I have understood you I agree.
General statements are often true under certain conditions. Science specifies the conditions. E.g. water boils at 100 degrees C is true if other conditions are met (e.g. air pressure that of sea level). Entire theories need not be abandoned in the face of counterfactual evidence. They can be modified or improved and so science advances. It is never complete or done. All we have is theories which fit the currently available evidence. They are never proved true. At some point they will likely be modified further (and it is still possible they will be abandoned in the light of radical new discoveries).
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Help with falsifiability!

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Wossname wrote: February 14th, 2020, 4:27 pm If you can't show a thing exists how can it be a scientific claim that it does?
It can't, as I understand it. But who has mentioned, up until now, a "scientific" claim for God's existence? [Ignoring for the moment that no-one has 'claimed' anything about God. We simply accept here that some people believe God exists.] There are more ways to understand the world than just science. Spiritual understanding, for example (again), seems to wind up some objectivists, but others accept it without demur. Other matters are less, er, vague, but still outside the purview of science, such as the metaphysical hypothesis 'we are all brains in vats'. If we stick only with science, we limit what we can see, believe or understand, and I choose not to do this. YMMV. 😉
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Wossname
Posts: 429
Joined: January 31st, 2020, 10:41 am

Re: Help with falsifiability!

Post by Wossname »

Pattern-chaser wrote: February 16th, 2020, 8:31 am Wossname wrote: ↑February 14th, 2020, 8:27 pm
If you can't show a thing exists how can it be a scientific claim that it does?
It can't, as I understand it. But who has mentioned, up until now, a "scientific" claim for God's existence? [Ignoring for the moment that no-one has 'claimed' anything about God. We simply accept here that some people believe God exists.] There are more ways to understand the world than just science. Spiritual understanding, for example (again), seems to wind up some objectivists, but others accept it without demur. Other matters are less, er, vague, but still outside the purview of science, such as the metaphysical hypothesis 'we are all brains in vats'. If we stick only with science, we limit what we can see, believe or understand, and I choose not to do this. YMMV.
Fair enough. I thought we were on falsifiability and science.
I agree, science is a very useful, but by its nature limited approach to understanding.
Some matters are not within its remit.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Help with falsifiability!

Post by Steve3007 »

Wossname wrote:I agree, science is a very useful, but by its nature limited approach to understanding.
Some matters are not within its remit.
Arguably science is not about understanding at all. It's just about being useful. It's simply a process by which we describe and predict. Many people would say that "merely" describing and predicting is not understanding. But, then, what does it mean to understand something?
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Help with falsifiability!

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Yes, science gathers knowledge, not understanding. Some scientists must derive some understanding from the work they do, but my suspicion is that this is something the scientists do of themselves, independently to the science they practice. Maybe I'm wrong? Whatever the truth, to grok is very different from fact-gathering and testing.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Help with falsifiability!

Post by Steve3007 »

Pattern-chaser wrote:Yes, science gathers knowledge, not understanding. Some scientists must derive some understanding from the work they do, but my suspicion is that this is something the scientists do of themselves, independently to the science they practice. Maybe I'm wrong? Whatever the truth, to grok is very different from fact-gathering and testing.
So, as I asked in that last post, what does it mean to understand something?

Suppose that science tells us there is a force called gravity which, if we propose it to exist, very successfully describes and predicts the movements of various objects. Does this mean that we have, in any sense, understood why objects fall to the ground? Or does it just mean that we can predict when and how they will? Is there some way in which we could grok the phenomenon of objects falling to the ground or grok gravity?
Wossname
Posts: 429
Joined: January 31st, 2020, 10:41 am

Re: Help with falsifiability!

Post by Wossname »

Steve3007 wrote: February 17th, 2020, 12:57 pm by Steve3007 » Today, 4:57 pm

Pattern-chaser wrote:
Yes, science gathers knowledge, not understanding. Some scientists must derive some understanding from the work they do, but my suspicion is that this is something the scientists do of themselves, independently to the science they practice. Maybe I'm wrong? Whatever the truth, to grok is very different from fact-gathering and testing.
So, as I asked in that last post, what does it mean to understand something?

Suppose that science tells us there is a force called gravity which, if we propose it to exist, very successfully describes and predicts the movements of various objects. Does this mean that we have, in any sense, understood why objects fall to the ground? Or does it just mean that we can predict when and how they will? Is there some way in which we could grok the phenomenon of objects falling to the ground or grok gravity?
I take your point and that of Pattern-chaser.

I am unsure what it would mean to truly understand something in the way that you describe.

It’s an interesting question.

I don’t think we can understand ourselves or external reality fully. (I’d prefer not to debate idealism here). Our understanding is at best partial. And some (much, most?) is likely inaccurate.

Are you hinting perhaps at the Kantian distinction between noumenal and phenomenal? We are necessarily stuck with the phenomenal universe (how it seems to us) because the noumenal universe (the thing in itself) is a universe seen from no perspective at all and so is unknowable? Science describes the relations between phenomena (and as you say tries to predict). What else can it do?

I think you will agree that is no reason to abandon science. It is a reason for science to acknowledge some pretty severe limitations. Do you say many have forgotten those limitations and would benefit from some reminding? I am not sure if that is fair. I am not sure it’s not fair either. It certainly seems true of some.

Do you think that, in general, Western culture tends to value scientific enterprise, and efforts to answer scientific questions, more than other sorts of questions which are equally if not more important? The modern “age of reason” if it be such, is inherently unreasonable? A reflection of cultural bias perhaps?
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Science”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021