Does a theory have to be "falsifiable?"

[JohnStOnge]

Frankly, I never saw the idea that a theory has to be "Falsifiable" emphasized as "essential" until I saw it used as an argument that intelligent design can't be a theory. The understanding of the scientific method I grew up with did not include that as a necessary condition. Instead, the basic steps of the scientific method as I understood them are pretty much summed up by the author of the notes at http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html#Heading6:

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

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

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."

Ever since the idea of "falsifiability" as a necessary aspect of a theory came up in association with the "intelligent design" thing I've been skeptical. In my opinion, for example, the germ theory of disease is not falsifiable. Even if we were to infect a population with certain "germs" and no illnesses resulted, that would not falisfy the theory because other factors could be involved. Instead, the germ theory of disease is based on positive demonstration. Falsification has been involved, but it's been falsification of null hypotheses in order to infer acceptance of the alternative hypothesis that "germs" cause disease. Anyway, today I got around to just doing a Google Search on "Does a theory have to be falsifiable." What I found is that it's not an element of the scientific method. It is a philosophy proposed by Karl Popper and it is not universially accepted.

Here's an example of what I found:

Falsifiability: Definition from Answers.com

Here's another interesting article:

Association for Asia Research- Defining science

A key quote:

"Many modern scientists believe that falsifiability is a necessary feature of a scientific theory.

However, Thomas Kuhn, who is the author of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, disagreed with Popper. According to Kuhn, scientists tend to be dogmatic in seeking confirmation of established paradigm even in the light of conflicting data. Scientists stubbornly try to fit observed anomalies into their paradigm. Scientific revolutions have occurred in history, but only rarely, when an entire paradigm is in crises. In short, according Kuhn, falsifiability cannot be a criterion of science because it excludes the larger aspect of what scientists actually do."

I think you can pretty clearly see from that discussion that Popper's philosophy is not a "rule" of the scientific method.

I should have known. Once confident, dogmatic, and false statements were made. Don't get me wrong, I don't see how "intelligent design" could be inferred as the cause of what we see through the scientific method. But this thing about "it can't be a theory because it's not falsifiable" as though that an established rule of the scientific method is a crock.

 

[Red Dawn]

Frankly, I never saw the idea that a theory has to be "Falsifiable" emphasized as "essential" until I saw it used as an argument that intelligent design can't be a theory

then you don't understand science. Which doesn't surprise me, given your flat earth position on global warming.

that dude was 100% correct. Science isn't about proving anything. Science doesn't prove. 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.

The scientific method cannot, and does not, assert absolute proof of anything. Science isn't about truth. Its about knowledge. The core of the scientific method is to propose hypothoses and then try to shoot them down. Disprove them, as it were. That's the whole god damn point. If a hypothesis can't withstand utter scrutiny and testing it gets thrown out. If a hypothesis is tested, over and over, and scientists are unable to disprove it or shoot it down, it eventually gets elevated theory. Some theories withstand so much scrutiny and testing they become basic tenets of science. Like evolution or gravity. But nothing in science ever becomes "truth", and nothing in science is known with absolute 100% bullet proof certainty.

 

[KittenKoder]

John one major flaw is that modern science itself has evolved. The method you posted was from a long time ago, when people actually thought everything was binary. Science itself however proved that nothing, even the more static events, is binary. For those portions of science we can use mathematics they still have more theories and many formulas that were once considered "fact" have been found to need expanding with each new discovery. Gravity for instance, is not longer just E=MC^2 because we have discovered that other factors can modify the formula. The ONLY portions of science that can be considered truly static (with a very loose definition because we still haven't uncovered it all yet) are the historical sciences. Hell, chemistry is still mostly theory and very little static concepts. Even computer sciences are mostly theory. As Red Dawn said, the objective of science is now to be disproven.

 

[KittenKoder]

Oh, and going to add what is actually wrong with intelligent design and why I never say it's "not science" ... because really it isn't even theory.

Intelligent design cannot be proven or falsified because it only shows one part of scientific theory, the why. It has no how, not even steps. It cannot falsify any other scientific theories, and can even be applied to the current theories such as evolution. The only problem I have with creationists is that they think it does. Many have this strange notion that just because their myth say it was all put in motion by their god that all other sciences are wrong, when all it does is answer the one question science cannot, the why.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Oh, and going to add what is actually wrong with intelligent design and why I never say it's "not science" ... because really it isn't even theory.

Intelligent design cannot be proven or falsified because it only shows one part of scientific theory, the why. It has no how, not even steps. It cannot falsify any other scientific theories, and can even be applied to the current theories such as evolution. The only problem I have with creationists is that they think it does. Many have this strange notion that just because their myth say it was all put in motion by their god that all other sciences are wrong, when all it does is answer the one question science cannot, the why.

Except most religious types do NOT claim creation nullifies basic science, not even the base concepts of evolution. You need to actually learn what you are talking about. Ohh and remind us how you know what MOST wards of Mormons in California think and believe cause your family is Mormon.

 

[KittenKoder]

Oh, and going to add what is actually wrong with intelligent design and why I never say it's "not science" ... because really it isn't even theory.

Intelligent design cannot be proven or falsified because it only shows one part of scientific theory, the why. It has no how, not even steps. It cannot falsify any other scientific theories, and can even be applied to the current theories such as evolution. The only problem I have with creationists is that they think it does. Many have this strange notion that just because their myth say it was all put in motion by their god that all other sciences are wrong, when all it does is answer the one question science cannot, the why.

Except most religious types do NOT claim creation nullifies basic science, not even the base concepts of evolution. You need to actually learn what you are talking about. Ohh and remind us how you know what MOST wards of Mormons in California think and believe cause your family is Mormon.

Cue the "I have to argue even when someone posts something that agrees with me just because they aren't the same as me" crowd ...

Funny, I didn't expect you until tomorrow. However, even in your own post you do deny something that has a ton of evidence to support just because you don't want to face the truth: base concepts of evolution. Sorry, but that's denying it based on a myth that doesn't even deny it nor cut out the possibility. Why do you fear being a natural creature?

 

[michiganFats]

Much ado about nothing. Popper just reworded an ancient concept. The only surprising thing here is that he gets credit for stating the obvious.

 

[JohnStOnge]

[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?

 

[JohnStOnge]

John one major flaw is that modern science itself has evolved. The method you posted was from a long time ago, .

Kitten, the method I posted is not "from a long time ago." It's from a recent physics lab at the University of Rochester.

Otherwise, just do a Google search yourself on the idea of Karl Popper's idea that potential for "falsification" is an essential element of theory. You'll immediately see that there's an awful lot of people who disagree with that.

 

[JohnStOnge]

Science isn't about proving anything. Science doesn't prove. The scientific method is desinged to disprove. Nothing is provable in science. .

I don't believe I used terms like "proof" and "prove" in my post. However, I think I should mention that an awful lot of what goes on with respect to inference has to do with rejection of the null hypothesis. For example: If I wanted to infer that grapes cause children to grow faster, I'd design an experiment such that I'd randomly assign maybe 100 children to eat grapes every day and randomly assign 100 other to not eat grapes at all. When the experiment was over I'd measure the extent to which each child had grown.

Then I'd do some kind of statistical test to see if there was a "significant" difference in growth rates between the groups. "Significant" difference would mean that it would've been very unlikely that a difference as large as that observed could've occured if the null hypothesis that grapes had NO effect were true. But observing a "significant" difference (rejection of the null hypothesis) infers that that alternative hypothesis (grapes have an effect) is true. It does not represent "disproving" the hypothesis I'm interested in.

 

[JohnStOnge]

Much ado about nothing. Popper just reworded an ancient concept. The only surprising thing here is that he gets credit for stating the obvious.

It's not obvious. It's wrong. To say that one can't infer a reality based on "positive" evidence of its existence is ridiculous.

For instance: Let's say I say birds exist. Is that "falsifiable?" No. Since it's not falsifiable, does that mean I can't reach a "scientific" conclusion that birds exist?

It's absurd. It really is.

 

[JohnStOnge]

But nothing in science ever becomes "truth", and nothing in science is known with absolute 100% bullet proof certainty.

Ok. Then you go out tomorrow and step off the side of a 10 story building. Let me know how it turns out. Or tell your relatives to let me know.

 

[Red Dawn]

Much ado about nothing. Popper just reworded an ancient concept. The only surprising thing here is that he gets credit for stating the obvious.

It's not obvious. It's wrong. To say that one can't infer a reality based on "positive" evidence of its existence is ridiculous.

For instance: Let's say I say birds exist. Is that "falsifiable?" No. Since it's not falsifiable, does that mean I can't reach a "scientific" conclusion that birds exist?

It's absurd. It really is.

Your making the same mistake you always do.

Your confusing observation, with scientific interpretation.

Please stop doing that. Birds, gravity, and global warming are observable phenomena. The scientific method isn't just about observation. Where birds came from, how they evolved, and their physiology and biology are scientific interpretations based on observation.

I suggest you stay off of science threads. You really don't know what you're talking about.

 

[JohnStOnge]

observable[/i] phenomena. The scientific method isn't just about observation. Where birds came from, how they evolved, and their physiology and biology are scientific interpretations based on observation.

I suggest you stay off of science threads. You really don't know what you're talking about.

Ok. Let's talk about experimentation. The effects of gravity can be demonstrated through that. Would you care to say that there is any lack of certainty about what will happen to you if you step off that 10 story building tomorrow?

Science isn't only about "interpretation." It's about things like establsihing cause and effect. And if you step off that 10 story building, gravity will cause you to fall to the ground.

If you want "interpretation," how about "The sun causes the Earth to be warmer than absolute zero." Do you think there is "doubt" about that?

 

[KittenKoder]

observable[/i] phenomena. The scientific method isn't just about observation. Where birds came from, how they evolved, and their physiology and biology are scientific interpretations based on observation.

I suggest you stay off of science threads. You really don't know what you're talking about.

Ok. Let's talk about experimentation. The effects of gravity can be demonstrated through that. Would you care to say that there is any lack of certainty about what will happen to you if you step off that 10 story building tomorrow?

Science isn't only about "interpretation." It's about things like establsihing cause and effect. And if you step off that 10 story building, gravity will cause you to fall to the ground.

If you want "interpretation," how about "The sun causes the Earth to be warmer than absolute zero." Do you think there is "doubt" about that?

Depends, which planet you are on (really, on Mars the results are different, and on Jupiter ... well hell) as well as temperature (recently we discovered that has a lot to do with how quickly things fall) then you have elevation of the ground ... higher elevations you fall faster because of thinner air, lower elevations you fall slower (technically it's measured in how long it takes to reach terminal velocity). These are all new concepts, and we have also found that space has layers of gravity plains all crumpled together like paper (the only theory that hasn't been disproven yet actually). E=MC^2 isn't even considered law anymore, it's still only theory, and very incomplete. Recent experiments in attempts at levitation have also shown that sound plays a huge role in how quickly things can fall, though there are no natural occurances to be observed yet. Really, don't try that gravity one, especially in this day and age when gravity is soon to be controllable.

 

[michiganFats]

Much ado about nothing. Popper just reworded an ancient concept. The only surprising thing here is that he gets credit for stating the obvious.

It's not obvious. It's wrong. To say that one can't infer a reality based on "positive" evidence of its existence is ridiculous.

For instance: Let's say I say birds exist. Is that "falsifiable?" No. Since it's not falsifiable, does that mean I can't reach a "scientific" conclusion that birds exist?

It's absurd. It really is.

Actually, it does mean that you can't reach a scientific conclusion that birds exist, because that observation doesn't require the scientific method to prove. I agree with the first link you put in your OP, the one you said that you were familiar with. That's also the way I learned scientific method. That link states that the scientific method is used to prove OR disprove. It also states that an old saying in science is that no theory can be proven(my words).

I took the time to do some reading online about Popper, and it seems to me that Popper was trying to remind scientists that their job is to deal with data, and not try to shoehorn data into a little box that proves preconceived notions, much like what is happening today with Global Warming.

It's important to realize why Popper wrote about falsifiability. He lived in a time when Astrology was masquerading as science. Astrologers were publicly contradicting the findings of scientists and scientists were resorting to "less than scientific means" to make their case in the public eye, and all Popper was doing was drawing a line between the two. In other words, if you make a prediction, and it doesn't pan out, claiming "the whims of the gods" as an excuse isn't good enough. A hypothesis can be dis-proven, faith cannot be. I maintain that all Popper did was reword an ancient concept in order to make the public understand the difference between science and hood-winkery.

Back to your bird example. I think a much better example of science in action would be the following...."Swallows migrate to San Juan Capistrano every year.". At this point we have a statement that can be tested. It requires more to prove (or disprove) than merely looking up into the sky. And, San Juan Capistrano may be incidental. Research and experimentation will shed more light on the subject, and will lead (hopefully) to the ability to accurately predict the future actions of swallows. Maybe this has already been done, but you get my point.

 

[JohnStOnge]

Actually, it does mean that you can't reach a scientific conclusion that birds exist, because that observation doesn't require the scientific method to prove.

I agree that scenario doesn't really involve the scientific method in that there's no need to explain a phenomenon. But notice what I actually said:

"To say that one can't infer a reality based on "positive" evidence of its existence is ridiculous."

I stand by that statement.

What I was doing was using what I think is an example analogous to some of the examples of those promoting the "falsification" as necessary idea. One popular example is this one:

"Observation: Every swan I've ever seen is white.
Hypothesis: All swans must be white.
Test: A random sampling of swans from each continent where swans are indigenous produces only white swans.
Publication: "My global research has indicated that swans are always white, wherever they are observed."
Verification: Every swan any other scientist has ever observed in any country has always been white.
Theory: All swans are white.
Prediction: The next swan I see will be white. "

I've also seen it said that "Bigfoot does not exist" is a theory because it would be falsified if a Bigfoot is found while "Bigfoot does exist" is not a theory because there's no way to falsify it. The implication, I think, is that the "Bigfoot does not exist" postulate is "scientifically" superior just by virtue of being falsifiable. But finding a Bigfoot would be unequivocal proof of the "Bigfoot does exist" postulate. The idea that Bigfoot does exist would be established with far more certainty than the idea that "Bigfoot does not exist" could ever be. The idea that things can't be established as true because they're not falsifiable is nonsense.

Back to your bird example. I think a much better example of science in action would be the following...."Swallows migrate to San Juan Capistrano every year.". At this point we have a statement that can be tested. It requires more to prove (or disprove) than merely looking up into the sky. And, San Juan Capistrano may be incidental. Research and experimentation will shed more light on the subject, and will lead (hopefully) to the ability to accurately predict the future actions of swallows. Maybe this has already been done, but you get my point.

I think that hypothesis could indeed be supported through simple observation if you're in Capistrano to observe the return of the swallows every year. Of course, you could never have 100% certainty that they will return again next year because something could happen to prevent that. But you could make the prediction with a very high level of confidence that I don't think would be improved much by additional study. Now, if you wanted to get more precise and be able to predict exactly when they show up every year you'd have a chance to significantly improve accuracy by studying the swallows and the conditions under which they migrate. But if it was experimental science the role of experimentation would be very limited. It would be overwhelmingly observational study involving looking for associations between enviornmental factors and behavior.

 

[michiganFats]

I think that hypothesis could indeed be supported through simple observation if you're in Capistrano to observe the return of the swallows every year. Of course, you could never have 100% certainty that they will return again next year because something could happen to prevent that. But you could make the prediction with a very high level of confidence that I don't think would be improved much by additional study. Now, if you wanted to get more precise and be able to predict exactly when they show up every year you'd have a chance to significantly improve accuracy by studying the swallows and the conditions under which they migrate. But if it was experimental science the role of experimentation would be very limited. It would be overwhelmingly observational study involving looking for associations between enviornmental factors and behavior.

My point in naming San Juan Capistrano was that research would lead to an explanation as to why the birds go there. Maybe some magnetic anomaly, a unique geological condition, food source. Point being that after some research and experimentation is done, the sentence would have to be re-phrased, because the original statement was found to be inaccurate.

As for the bigfoot examples, in my opinion those are people who are abusing falsification. After reading what Popper had to say about the scientific method, it is obvious to me that that is not what he meant.

 

[JohnStOnge]

That link states that the scientific method is used to prove OR disprove. It also states that an old saying in science is that no theory can be proven(my words)..

I know that is often said but, as a pracitcal matter, I think it's been demonstrated to be false. I'll go back to the germ theory of disease. Do you have any doubt that it's been proven that disease can be caused by bacterial and/or viral infection?

I suppose you could say that there's always some tiny probability that, by chance, the associations between pathogens and disease as well as the documented responses by the infected organisms such as production of antibodies in response to specific pathogens are just cooincidence and something else is really going on. But Please. It's proven by any reasonable definition of the word "proven."

And that's where I think people who use that "no theory is ever proven" argument are either being disingenous or not really thinking. There is a wide variation in the certainties associated with various theories and creating the impression that something is necessarily about as certain as it gets because it's a theory is creating a false impression.

 

[michiganFats]

Allow me to paraphrase Popper. Quite frankly I'm just too lazy to go pull quotes from all of the sources I went through this morning. My take on what he was saying is the following....In order for something to qualify as having undergone a scientific test, the possibility that the hypothesis could be wrong has to exist. Conversely, the possibility that the hypothesis could be true has to exist. If one of those conditions isn't present, then you aren't proving anything.....

That's a concept that predates Popper. As something is researched and the knowledge base grows, more accurate statements and forecasts can be made, as in your example with illness. We know what we know today because an idea was tested. That's all he was saying. He was merely reminding people that proper scientific conduct requires objectivity.