Theory Falsification is now ethical, not epistemological

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Post Reply
ernestm
Posts: 433
Joined: March 5th, 2018, 4:27 am

Theory Falsification is now ethical, not epistemological

Post by ernestm »

Of ~1,500 responses to the statement "Ptolemy was not wrong" on social media, 12 agreed Ptolemy is still science, but now old, or 'proto-scioence'. Another 16 directly stated that Ptolemy's theory is pseudoscience. Of those stating Ptolemy was wrong, 100 stated Ptolemy's theory was wrong because current cosmological theory is fact, invariably confusing premise falsification with theory falsification. These people believe (1) observations have 'proven' (rather than substantiated) hypotheses drawn upon the theory; and (2) by unconscious implication, the observations prove theories true.

It is certainly true that corroborations of a hypothesis are facts. All the objections made no distinction betwen observations that substantiate hypotheses as facts, and theories as facts. After listening to the objections, my conclusion is that Ptolemy's theory should not make anyone assert beyond doubt that the theory which produced a hypothesis can be turned into fact. That is, the problem has ceased to be one that can be addressed epistemologically, and has become an ethical issue. The reasoning follows:

The Historical Position. Scientific theories have been considered theories because they could again be superseded. In the case of Copernican and Keplerian heliocentric theories, they have already been superseded by relativistic theory, which states that the universe is still expanding from all points in space simultaneously. Further, something like antigravity could be discovered, in which case current astronomical theory will again be superseded by new theories. That is why science is held as being only an explanation of observations, and not a statement of necessary cause. Holding that scientific theories are 'facts' has historically been referred to as 'scientism,' because such belief can only be justified if the theories won't change.

Demands for Falsification. All but one of those asserting that Ptolemy's astronomy is pseudoscience (in one way or another) marred their position by claiming Ptolemy's theory has been falsified, whether or not they understood they were criticizing the premise (geocentrism), or the theory's induction (epicycles would explain retrograde motion).

Falsification Scope. Theory falsification now invokes as its foundation the argument of critical rationalism, a multi-part thesis from the eminent but wildly controversial Dr. Karl Popper (1934, 1959, 2002). At the turn of the millennium the USA almost completely rejected Popper's critical rationalism, because it also defines the so-calledsoft sciences (psychoanalysis, psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc) as insufficiently critical to be classified as science. Europeans have far less objection to considering soft sciences as arts. By contrast, the USA tries to shift as much as possible into science from the arts, because science gets far more funding, not only academically, but also in the business arena.

Motives for Falsification. Anti-theists such as Dr. Richard Dawkins (2006) claim that scientific theories such as evolution must be regarded as facts, and that inductions leading to theory formation must be regarded as causes, an ideology one may call 'scientific realism.' That works against the interests of those trying to get more funding for soft sciences. To meet Dawkins' goal of scientific realism, any paradigm that is even currently out of vogue must be demoted to pseudoscience, in the interest of maintaining factual purity.

Ethics of Falsification. On the one hand, USA's scientific realists believe that eradication of belief in God is good for society. On the other hand, scientific realism results in soft sciences receiving less funding. Thus falsification is no longer an epistemological issue, but has become an ethical issue. But there remains another issue independent of the motivations of scientific realists and soft scientists: does one want a society which has decided science has accumulated so many facts that we can no longer dream of new possibilities, be they antigravity or anything else, because we have turned theories into facts, denying new imaginations? And we cannot, for that is exactly the universally held criticism of Galileo's persecution.

The Deontology of Falsification. The dilemma remains, however, that those who wish to believe that scientific realism is true cannot be denied the right to that belief either. Thus while we can say theories should not be facts, we also cannot say that theories could not be facts. That moves the debate on whether Ptolemy's theory is falsifiable beyond the realm of logical truth and falsehood into the shadowy world of deontology (the study of what one ought to do), for which science has no answer (a long-standing problem called Hume's guillotine (1739), restated as Moore'sNaturalistic fallacy (1922), that observations of the world cannot define what we ought to do without defining moral premises).
"In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not.

This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, it's necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason."
"Hume's Treatise on Human Nature (1739). Book III, part I, section I.
The solution: demarcation, instead of falsification. The degradation of falsification into a deontological quagmire makes it clear that it is not the appropriate approach to deciding whether it is pseudoscience. Amazingly, however, there is another part of Popper's multi-part thesis that defined a new notion called demarcation, which can draw a line between that which is science and that which is not science, without even introducing the issue of theory falsification at all.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Theory Falsification is now ethical, not epistemological

Post by Pattern-chaser »

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. Is it the principle or practice of "theory falsification" that is exercising you? Or something else?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
ernestm
Posts: 433
Joined: March 5th, 2018, 4:27 am

Re: Theory Falsification is now ethical, not epistemological

Post by ernestm »

Pattern-chaser wrote: November 28th, 2022, 12:57 pm I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. Is it the principle or practice of "theory falsification" that is exercising you? Or something else?
What;s happened is, because of antitheists wanting to turn theories into facts, its no longer an epistemological issue whether theories are false or not. The ethical thing to do is not to think of old scientific theories as falsified, but only superseded.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Theory Falsification is now ethical, not epistemological

Post by Pattern-chaser »

ernestm wrote: November 28th, 2022, 10:56 pm ...because of antitheists wanting to turn theories into facts...
I'm not aware of this. No scientist would try to turn theories into "facts", and I'm not clear on why an 'antitheist' would wish to do so?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Theory Falsification is now ethical, not epistemological

Post by Pattern-chaser »

P.S. Old scientific theories are falsified — i.e. shown to be false — which is why they are abandoned.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
ernestm
Posts: 433
Joined: March 5th, 2018, 4:27 am

Re: Theory Falsification is now ethical, not epistemological

Post by ernestm »

Pattern-chaser wrote: November 29th, 2022, 1:51 pm P.S. Old scientific theories are falsified — i.e. shown to be false — which is why they are abandoned.
As i said, it hasn't actually been falsified. In 6,000 words. At https://yofiel.com/jesus/geocentrism.php ~ And now I am paying someone to review it for me. Not from here, lol.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Theory Falsification is now ethical, not epistemological

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Pattern-chaser wrote: November 29th, 2022, 1:51 pm P.S. Old scientific theories are falsified — i.e. shown to be false — which is why they are abandoned.
ernestm wrote: November 30th, 2022, 1:29 am As i said, it hasn't actually been falsified. In 6,000 words. At https://yofiel.com/jesus/geocentrism.php ~ And now I am paying someone to review it for me. Not from here, lol.
"It"? What is "it"? You refered to theories.
ernestm wrote: November 28th, 2022, 10:56 pm The ethical thing to do is not to think of old scientific theories as falsified, but only superseded.


BTW, geocentrism is quite a poor example, I think. Although many details of Ptolemy's ideas don't hold up in the face of what we now know, the simple truth is that geocentrism is valid, if you place your (Cartesian) graphical origin — the point from which you observe — on Earth, maybe just beside your self, wherever you happen to be. If you zoom out, and place your origin in the centre of our Sun, you get a different, but equally valid and useful, perspective. And so on.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
ernestm
Posts: 433
Joined: March 5th, 2018, 4:27 am

Re: Theory Falsification is now ethical, not epistemological

Post by ernestm »

Pattern-chaser wrote: November 30th, 2022, 10:35 am
Pattern-chaser wrote: November 29th, 2022, 1:51 pm P.S. Old scientific theories are falsified — i.e. shown to be false — which is why they are abandoned.
ernestm wrote: November 30th, 2022, 1:29 am As i said, it hasn't actually been falsified. In 6,000 words. At https://yofiel.com/jesus/geocentrism.php ~ And now I am paying someone to review it for me. Not from here, lol.
"It"? What is "it"? You refered to theories.
ernestm wrote: November 28th, 2022, 10:56 pm The ethical thing to do is not to think of old scientific theories as falsified, but only superseded.


BTW, geocentrism is quite a poor example, I think. Although many details of Ptolemy's ideas don't hold up in the face of what we now know, the simple truth is that geocentrism is valid, if you place your (Cartesian) graphical origin — the point from which you observe — on Earth, maybe just beside your self, wherever you happen to be. If you zoom out, and place your origin in the centre of our Sun, you get a different, but equally valid and useful, perspective. And so on.
People often say that, but its not true, as explained in section 1 of https://yofiel.com/jesus/geocentrism.php

I have rather given up on pointing it out, because the only way I can get anyone to read it is by sending them individual paragraphs, one by one, in response to a series of objections that invariably follow the same pattern, and after repeating this 1500 times, and only three people actually being kind enough to say thank you and that I have a point, Ive reached the stage of wanting to smoke opium rather than talk to other human beings.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Theory Falsification is now ethical, not epistemological

Post by Pattern-chaser »

ernestm wrote: December 1st, 2022, 2:56 am
Pattern-chaser wrote: November 30th, 2022, 10:35 am
Pattern-chaser wrote: November 29th, 2022, 1:51 pm P.S. Old scientific theories are falsified — i.e. shown to be false — which is why they are abandoned.
ernestm wrote: November 30th, 2022, 1:29 am As i said, it hasn't actually been falsified. In 6,000 words. At https://yofiel.com/jesus/geocentrism.php ~ And now I am paying someone to review it for me. Not from here, lol.
"It"? What is "it"? You refered to theories.
ernestm wrote: November 28th, 2022, 10:56 pm The ethical thing to do is not to think of old scientific theories as falsified, but only superseded.


BTW, geocentrism is quite a poor example, I think. Although many details of Ptolemy's ideas don't hold up in the face of what we now know, the simple truth is that geocentrism is valid, if you place your (Cartesian) graphical origin — the point from which you observe — on Earth, maybe just beside your self, wherever you happen to be. If you zoom out, and place your origin in the centre of our Sun, you get a different, but equally valid and useful, perspective. And so on.
People often say that, but its not true, as explained in section 1 of https://yofiel.com/jesus/geocentrism.php

I have rather given up on pointing it out, because the only way I can get anyone to read it is by sending them individual paragraphs, one by one, in response to a series of objections that invariably follow the same pattern, and after repeating this 1500 times, and only three people actually being kind enough to say thank you and that I have a point, Ive reached the stage of wanting to smoke opium rather than talk to other human beings.
I have followed your link, although I did not read every word you wrote there. I did not find your writing convincing or helpful, I'm afraid. Sorry.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
MAYA EL
Posts: 177
Joined: May 2nd, 2019, 11:17 pm

Re: Theory Falsification is now ethical, not epistemological

Post by MAYA EL »

Pattern-chaser wrote: December 2nd, 2022, 10:40 am
ernestm wrote: December 1st, 2022, 2:56 am
Pattern-chaser wrote: November 30th, 2022, 10:35 am
Pattern-chaser wrote: November 29th, 2022, 1:51 pm P.S. Old scientific theories are falsified — i.e. shown to be false — which is why they are abandoned.
ernestm wrote: November 30th, 2022, 1:29 am As i said, it hasn't actually been falsified. In 6,000 words. At https://yofiel.com/jesus/geocentrism.php ~ And now I am paying someone to review it for me. Not from here, lol.
"It"? What is "it"? You refered to theories.
ernestm wrote: November 28th, 2022, 10:56 pm The ethical thing to do is not to think of old scientific theories as falsified, but only superseded.


BTW, geocentrism is quite a poor example, I think. Although many details of Ptolemy's ideas don't hold up in the face of what we now know, the simple truth is that geocentrism is valid, if you place your (Cartesian) graphical origin — the point from which you observe — on Earth, maybe just beside your self, wherever you happen to be. If you zoom out, and place your origin in the centre of our Sun, you get a different, but equally valid and useful, perspective. And so on.
People often say that, but its not true, as explained in section 1 of https://yofiel.com/jesus/geocentrism.php

I have rather given up on pointing it out, because the only way I can get anyone to read it is by sending them individual paragraphs, one by one, in response to a series of objections that invariably follow the same pattern, and after repeating this 1500 times, and only three people actually being kind enough to say thank you and that I have a point, Ive reached the stage of wanting to smoke opium rather than talk to other human beings.
I have followed your link, although I did not read every word you wrote there. I did not find your writing convincing or helpful, I'm afraid. Sorry.
Well I agree with you despite not reading your paper because I understand what your talking about and your much better at explaining it than I'll ever be
Alan Masterman
Posts: 219
Joined: March 27th, 2011, 8:03 am

Re: Theory Falsification is now ethical, not epistemological

Post by Alan Masterman »

No, I think most of the replies betray a basic misunderstanding of the philosophy of science. Science has no interest in "true" or "false"; only in what works better, and what works worse.

"Scientific theories have been considered theories because they could again be superseded"

Scientific theories can indeed be superseded, but they need more than that to be considered as theories. To be called a "theory", a hypothesis must meet two basic criteria:

(1) it explains the current data better than any alternative hypothesis; and

(2) it provides a basis for predicting future outcomes.

Although the heliocentric theory had been elaborated long before Ptolemy's time, his geocentric theory gained pre-eminence because he actually took the trouble to work out the geometry in detail (and of course, it flattered human arrogance). His system explained all of the data and formed a basis for accurate predictions. In early modern times, other scientists worked out systems which could do the same job more economically. But as Bertrand Russell put it, there's no scientific reason why the moon can't be made of green cheese, except that the body of theory which would have to be elaborated to explain this would be much more complicated and less economical than the hypothesis that it's really made of rock as it seems to be.
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