Does a theory have to be "falsifiable?"

[JohnStOnge]

But they really burn me up when they want to teach KIDS to do that in SCIENCE class. Aren't we embarassed yet by our educational performance in an international context? Are we really trying to make it worse?

Would you have an objection to kids being taught about the Search for Extraterrestial Intelligence (SETI) in science class?

 

[JohnStOnge]

ID explains nothing.

Actually, it purports to explain everything. You just don't like the proposed explanation.

 

[JohnStOnge]

The problem with ID is this. When you get down to bio-molecular level, there are some complexities whose origin has not been determined. The ID solution is to say that these are too complex to have arisen naturally and thus are evidence of a designing force. The problem with this is 1) just because the origin has not been explained naturally, does not mean it cannot be explained naturally 2) it provides no further information about the procedure or methods of the "designer" or information about the designer itself.

In a situation where an explanation for a biological mechanism is not forthcoming, the scientist may seek an explanation from various perspectives. The scientist may assume a natural orgin for the mechanism and search for its evolutionary roots, since evolution is a well-developed, well-evidenced explantation for biological diversity. What ID offers as an alternative is for the scientist to say, "well- I don't know how this came about- so it must be the work of some unknown designer whose existence is complete speculation and something for which I have no other evidence whatsoever."

There is absolutely nothing to stop an advocate of Intelligent Design from continuing to study such things and attempting to see how they unfolded and/or how they might be re-created. I've seen that general line of argument many times and I think it's a red herring. I'm not accusing you of this in particular because you very well may have just read the argument, thought it sounded reasonable, and so repeated it. But I look at it as an effort to divert attention away from the real issue and avoid engaging in actual debate as to the legitimacy of the arguments on the other side.

 

[Old Rocks]

[The scientific method is desinged to disprove. Nothing is provable in science. That's not the way it works. Absolute 100% certainty is the realm of religion and faith.

Oh really? Life exists on planet Earth. Do you have some doubt about that? Or are you going to tell me that there's no such thing as absolute certainty except in the realm of religion and faith?

That is an observation, not a theory.

 

[Old Rocks]

But they really burn me up when they want to teach KIDS to do that in SCIENCE class. Aren't we embarassed yet by our educational performance in an international context? Are we really trying to make it worse?

Would you have an objection to kids being taught about the Search for Extraterrestial Intelligence (SETI) in science class?

Given what we now know concerning evolution and abiogenisis, why shouldn't children be taught about the effort to see if we can find fellow beings in this universe? After all, that is what science is about, search.

 

[Old Rocks]

ID explains nothing.

Actually, it purports to explain everything. You just don't like the proposed explanation.

ID is nothing but handwaving cowardice, stating, like the old grade Z science fiction movies, "SOME THINGS ARE JUST BEYOND THE UNDERSTANDING OF MAN!". It is not an acceptable theory. And the germ theory can be falsified, all you have to do is show that the proteans and other compounds created within the host organsims can do no harm.

Falsifiability is indeed part of the definiation of scientific theory. And people like yourself will hardly redefine that definition.

 

[JohnStOnge]

Falsifiability is indeed part of the definiation of scientific theory.

Dude, it is not. The scientific method implies positive inference. Again, here are the four basic steps:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

The "falisifiability" thing is a philosophy to which many scientists subscribe. It is not a universially accepted essential aspect of the scientific method.

 

[JohnStOnge]

Given what we now know concerning evolution and abiogenisis, why shouldn't children be taught about the effort to see if we can find fellow beings in this universe? After all, that is what science is about, search.

We know very little about abiogenesis, but we do have a lot of speculation.

Otherwise, the point on SETI is that what they're doing is looking at signals and deciding whether or not they can reasonably explained by natural processes. Does the concept of attempting to distinguish "intelligent design" from "resulting from natural processes" sound familiar?

 

[JohnStOnge]

JohnStOnge, you only posted other people's opinions about Popper, you didn't post anything from the man himself. Of course some today are trying to discredit him, because they are precisely the type of people he was trying to put in their place in his day.

Ok, I went ahead and read an essay on the subject by Popper himself. It's at http://stripe.colorado.edu/~fredrice/popper.pdf . In my opinion his philosophy was pretty much accurately represented by the sources I'd looked at.

If all he said is that a theory has to be testable, I'd agree with that. The scientific method clearly requires that a hypothesis has to be tested through experimentation before it can become a theory. But that's not all he said. He wrote this:

"Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or refute it.

That's simply not true. Take the hypothesis that putting mice on a low calorie diet results, on average, in greater longevity. This is how experiments to test that theory will generally proceed:

Mice will be randomly assigned the treatment of reduced caloric intake. Control mice will be randomly assigned the status of being controls. Longevity will be measured. A statstical test will be applied to the results. If the result is that the mean longevity of the low caloric intake mice is "significantly" greater at an acceptable level of confidence (usually 95%), the outcome will be considered to support the hypothesis. After that's done a bunch of times it'll be considered a very strongly substantiated theory.

There is NO effort to refute the hypothesis during that process. In fact, if the truth is that a low calorie diet has no effect, the hypothesis CAN NOT be refuted because the null hypothesis CAN NOT be inferred as true. Though you see it a lot, it is improper to say that ANY statistical experiment showed that there was "no difference" or "no effect."

What's going on is that the investigator sets up a conceptual model in which the treatment has no effect. That is the "null" hypothesis. The alternative hypothesis is that the treatment does have the hypothesized effect. The alternative hypothesis is inferred if the results are such that they would not be likely to have occured if the null hypothesis were true. There can be two outcomes to the experiment. The one the investigator is hoping for is stated something like, "There is sufficient evidence, at the 95% confidence level, to conclude that the altenrative hypothesis (low calorie diet means greater longevity on average) is true." The other outcome is "There is NOT sufficient evidence to conclude, at the 95% confidence level, that the alternative hypothesis is true." But that does not represent having refuted the alternative hypotheis. If the null hypothesis is "no effect," it is not possible to infer it as true. It is only possible to infer it as false.

The only way the alternative hypothesis can be inferred as false in such an experiment is if the results come out so that it looks like the effect is actually opposite from that hypothesized. So if you wanted to you could set up an experiment and make the alternative hypothesis the opposite of what you actually want to infer. You could say your null hypothesis is that there is either no effect or that mice live longer on low calorie diets. Then the alternative hypothesis would be that mice don't live as long on low calorie diets. And if you got results unlikely to have occurred under the null hypothesis you would have falsified the hypothesis that mice live longer on low calorie diets.

If you accept Popper's idea that any good test of a theory is an effort to refute it, that's what you'd have to do. But, if your hypothesis is that mice live longer on low calorie diets, that makes absolutely no sense. The idea is that you have to "prove" that they live longer on low calorie diets and the way to do that is to set your null hypothesis up as "no effect or they don't live as long." And when you do that you are NOT trying to set your experiment up to refute your hypothesis.

 

[midcan5]

I've never understood the arguments for intelligent design, If one has faith in gawd, then believe, why argue with a theory used to explain the world, and specifically used to understand how change comes about. Evolution is key to medical science and integral to progress in medicine. It is a tool in man's constant quest to understand why. All ID does is posit a first cause, a entity with an amazing sense of humor given the complexity of life.

And a second skepticism I have is what is exactly intelligent? The animal kingdom is a literal dog eat dog world with so many weird forms of life it boggles my mind. What is intelligent about one life form eating another life form to live. And what is intelligent about the children who die every few seconds as I type this. Or those murdered every minute. Instead of arguing ID the religious should turn their attention to life and let gawd in all her glory sort it out. That is if she still cares, maybe not.

"The uncompromising attitude is more indicative of an inner uncertainty than a deep conviction. The implacable stand is directed more against the doubt within than the assailant without." Eric Hoffer

interesting links

Seed: The Evolution of Life in 60 Seconds
The Origin and Evolution of Life
http://www.botgard.ucla.edu/html/botanytextbooks/lifeforms/index.html

 

[Old Rocks]

Given what we now know concerning evolution and abiogenisis, why shouldn't children be taught about the effort to see if we can find fellow beings in this universe? After all, that is what science is about, search.

We know very little about abiogenesis, but we do have a lot of speculation.

Otherwise, the point on SETI is that what they're doing is looking at signals and deciding whether or not they can reasonably explained by natural processes. Does the concept of attempting to distinguish "intelligent design" from "resulting from natural processes" sound familiar?

No, it does not. And we know a great deal more about the chemical pathways that were possibly involved in abiogenisis than you seem to realize. From chirality to bi-lipid layers and feldspars, the many possible pathways to life are being mapped right now. A very fascinating field of inquiry.

ID has a severe philosophical problem. It assumes that the diety, or dieties, are so incompetant that they created a universe that they have to canstantly diddle with to get it right. Pretty incompetant diety(s).

Hunting for a physical radio signal that has an origin in the actions of intelligent life is a far differant philisophical content. We know we evolved here, and see no reason that other places in the universe might not have places that have conditions that would harbor life. Not an assumption that the life exists, but a hypothesis, based on our own existance, that it might.

 

[N4mddissent]

The problem with ID is this. When you get down to bio-molecular level, there are some complexities whose origin has not been determined. The ID solution is to say that these are too complex to have arisen naturally and thus are evidence of a designing force. The problem with this is 1) just because the origin has not been explained naturally, does not mean it cannot be explained naturally 2) it provides no further information about the procedure or methods of the "designer" or information about the designer itself.

In a situation where an explanation for a biological mechanism is not forthcoming, the scientist may seek an explanation from various perspectives. The scientist may assume a natural orgin for the mechanism and search for its evolutionary roots, since evolution is a well-developed, well-evidenced explantation for biological diversity. What ID offers as an alternative is for the scientist to say, "well- I don't know how this came about- so it must be the work of some unknown designer whose existence is complete speculation and something for which I have no other evidence whatsoever."

There is absolutely nothing to stop an advocate of Intelligent Design from continuing to study such things and attempting to see how they unfolded and/or how they might be re-created. I've seen that general line of argument many times and I think it's a red herring. I'm not accusing you of this in particular because you very well may have just read the argument, thought it sounded reasonable, and so repeated it. But I look at it as an effort to divert attention away from the real issue and avoid engaging in actual debate as to the legitimacy of the arguments on the other side.

If some biological mechanism is classified as evidence of design, then it must be such that it could not have come to exist through natural methods. If a natural path to its existence is possible, then it isn't "evidence" of design. So, if one advocates intelligent design, then exactly what would continuing study of "designed" mechanisms possibly yield other than discredit to your own theory?

It is in no way a red herring. It is fundamental to the issue.

 

[jsnforce]

I think Science, as a whole, is arrogant while Religion is too stubborn. If I believed in a God (which I may), a God omnipotent that is, then why couldn't I believe that he can make a universe that actually functions properly without his constant intervention? And how does Science presume to suggest they know how life began? How the universe was created? How the whole universe functions?

Religion: Science isn't the devil. God gave us the Earth to figure out.
Science: If you continue to act like you know everything, you'll only look stupider when someone proves you wrong.

 

[N4mddissent]

I think Science, as a whole, is arrogant while Religion is too stubborn. If I believed in a God (which I may), a God omnipotent that is, then why couldn't I believe that he can make a universe that actually functions properly without his constant intervention? And how does Science presume to suggest they know how life began? How the universe was created? How the whole universe functions?

Religion: Science isn't the devil. God gave us the Earth to figure out.
Science: If you continue to act like you know everything, you'll only look stupider when someone proves you wrong.

Science doesn't presume to know how life began. Science acknowledges that even its best theories are subject to change if new information is available that better explains the natural world. Science, since it studies the natural world, makes no assumptions about supernatural beliefs, since by definition, they are not subject to scientific scrutiny. Many people take as a personal philosophy that the supernatural is not relevant since it is speculative and science has been the most effective method of obtaining reliable information about our world, but that is personal philosophy that is science-centered but not science itself. Science offers naturalistic hypotheses and theories about phenomena and then seeks information about their validity. And it readily acknowledges uncertainty and incomplete knowledge. Some may say it is arrogant in its assumption that a naturalistic explanation is possible, but since it functions with rules of a material universe, assuming natural or supernatural explanations makes it useless. Example: If a natural explanation for disease was not assumed, then there would be no purpose in looking beyond possession by demons causing sickness since that explanation would be equally valid. But by assuming a naturalistic explanation existed, we have been able to make great progress in medicine.

 

[JohnStOnge]

. And we know a great deal more about the chemical pathways that were possibly involved in abiogenisis than you seem to realize. From chirality to bi-lipid layers and feldspars, the many possible pathways to life are being mapped right now. A very fascinating field of inquiry..

We know a great deal about pathways that "were possibly" involved in abiogenisis? You're talking about speculation. You're talking about speculation as to what might have led to the generation of life. If someone ever conducts an experiment to see if conditions they think would lead to the generation of life and the experiment leads to the generation of life, then they will "know." But right now it's speculation.

 

[JohnStOnge]

Hunting for a physical radio signal that has an origin in the actions of intelligent life is a far differant philisophical content. We know we evolved here, and see no reason that other places in the universe might not have places that have conditions that would harbor life. Not an assumption that the life exists, but a hypothesis, based on our own existance, that it might.

I don't know about "philosophical" content, but it's not different in analytical content. The test involves determining whether or not the observation could reasonably be attributed to something other than intelligent "design."

 

[JohnStOnge]

Evolution is key to medical science and integral to progress in medicine.]

No it's not. I've seen that said a lot and it's just not true. It is not at all necessary to progress in medicine. To say that one has to be cognizant of evolutionary theory in order to recognize the relationships necessary to proceed with medical research is nonsense.

 

[JohnStOnge]

Example: If a natural explanation for disease was not assumed, then there would be no purpose in looking beyond possession by demons causing sickness since that explanation would be equally valid. But by assuming a naturalistic explanation existed, we have been able to make great progress in medicine.

I don't know what people who developed the germ theory of disease were thinking, but I don't think it was necessary to assume a naturalistic explanation existed. I think it would've been sufficient to think a naturalistic explanation was a possibility and then look into that possibility. Seeing it as a possibility is sufficient to look beyond things like possession by demons.

 

[N4mddissent]

Example: If a natural explanation for disease was not assumed, then there would be no purpose in looking beyond possession by demons causing sickness since that explanation would be equally valid. But by assuming a naturalistic explanation existed, we have been able to make great progress in medicine.

I don't know what people who developed the germ theory of disease were thinking, but I don't think it was necessary to assume a naturalistic explanation existed. I think it would've been sufficient to think a naturalistic explanation was a possibility and then look into that possibility. Seeing it as a possibility is sufficient to look beyond things like possession by demons.

While it may be possible that someone will look beyond supernatural explanations, it is certainly much less likely. Especially if one studies the phenomena and no explanation is immediately forthcoming. Without a philosophy in which a naturalistic explanation is assumed, then the probability that investigation into difficult problems will be prematurely abandoned is much higher. It can be easily imagined that natural events like earthquakes and lightning could be chalked up to god's wrath rather than investigated and explained. Would the origin of stars have been investigated if a firm philosophy of naturalism in science was not accepted? Imagine being in the past and considering such a problem. We have no way to analyze them directly. They live and die far beyond human lifespans. If the possibility that "god just made them in the beginning" was equally acceptable as an explanation, I find it difficult to imagine that anyone would have put forth the creative effort that eventually led us to current explanations. If they did not have a philosophical commitment to finding a naturalistic explanation, scientists would be much less capable of explaining our world. And the reason the philosophy has become accepted worldwide as part of scientific methodology, is because it has been far more successful than any supernatural explanations.

How many examples of supernatural explanations for phenomena can you give that approach scientific explanations for reliability and predictive power?

 

[garyd]

The problem with science is that it is limited to that which the senses can detect which is to say data. But what if the Data are wrong or misleading? The more we learn about this universe the less we trully seem to know. Every answer yields yet more questions.

From a Christian persective if salvation is to be by Grace and Grace alone then God cannot be directly provable by either human science or human reason. Ergot there must be some other seemingly logical alternative to 'God did it."