Does a theory have to be "falsifiable?"

[JohnStOnge]

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.

Fair enough. I've only read what others have had to say about his philosophy so I can't say he's been misrepresented. But if you are correct, for me its additional validation of my belief that people are using fallacious arguments to dismiss certain things as being pseudo science.

I also think the term "pseudo science" is reserved for certain things. I haven't heard anyone characterize, for example, the Search for Extraterristial Intelligence (SETI) as pseudo science. They have predicted that signals sent by intelligent extra terrestial life forms would have certain characteristics that would allow distinguishing them from random noise. There is no theory involved because they are at the stage...and may always be at the stage...of making observations. They haven't yet observed anything that they think can be distinguised from random noise. But I think what they're doing is science.

However, I think that if you apply the standards that are applied to certain things that the scientific community doesn't like, SETI would be characterized as pseudo science because there is no "falsifiability" at this point (using it in the sense that I've seen and not necessarily as Popper meant it if you're correct). And what would happen if they do encoutner a signal that they say is not random noise? How is their belief that it infers intelligent extra terrestial life going to be "falsified?"

I bring them up because the throught process they're using is similar to that used in the intelligent design movement. They are basically making probability arguments that what we observe could not reasonably have occurred through natural, undirected processes. As I understand it, the idea they're using is similar to the concept of archeaologists using certain criteria to determine whether or not formations they find were crafted by humans as opposed to have resulted from natural processes. I think trying to dismiss them in the public mind with this "not falsifiable" nonsense is a cop out. It's a cheap trick to silence them. Nothing wrong with engaging them and arguing that there are flaws in their thought process. For instance, I think there's a flaw in their reasoning in that, regardless of how small the probability of something is, the likelyhood of its occurence becomes substantial in a very large number of trials. And I think the existence of a very large physical universe with countless numbers of galaxies, etc., provides the opportunity for a very large number of trials. It's kind of like if someone says it's not possible to win the Powerball because the odds of winning with a single ticket are something like one in 140 million. People do win the Powerball because so many tickets are purchased.

But I think the approach that's been taken is intellectual cowardice.

 

[michiganFats]

I think people are not only making fallacious claims to dismiss something as pseudo-science, there are plenty of people using pseudo-science to make fallacious claims.

SETI is what it is, I wasn't aware that they were actually trying to prove anything. Basically, they're just spelunking. It is a scientific endeavor, but it doesn't rise to the level of a test of any kind.

In my opinion intelligent design is not even worth discussing as anything other then a curiosity. In order to prove it, you need information about the designer(s). Good Luck to anyone who attempts to get that.

If I'm reading you correctly, the "falsifiability" argument is being used today by the very type of people whom Popper was attempting to discredit. In that case, yes, their claims should be examined closely(not that they shouldn't have otherwise been).

I highly recommend that you read about Popper and read what he actually said, not what some people today are trying to claim he said.

Here's Popper in a nutshell......
"2+2=4" scientific test.
"2" not a scientific test.

 

[YWN666]

[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?

A scientific theory is never 100% proven. There is always a possibility that something can be discovered that will falsify it. With many theories, that has not happened, however, and just because it is not proven doesn't mean the evidence behind it is not rock solid.

 

[KittenKoder]

[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?

Anyone who thinks religion is an absolute certainty doesn't understand faith.

 

[JohnStOnge]

A scientific theory is never 100% proven. There is always a possibility that something can be discovered that will falsify it. With many theories, that has not happened, however, and just because it is not proven doesn't mean the evidence behind it is not rock solid.

See post #19 above on the germ theory of disease. I'm not saying your intention is to do this, but I think that using that statement to try to create the impression that something like the theory of evolution or theories on the impact of human activity on the climate in order create the impression that those theories are established with the highest order of certainty is misleading. There are theories that are proven with 100% certainty by any rational standard. The germ theory of disease is one of them. The investigation of how sexual reproduction works involved theories. Once people didn't understand how reproduction worked. Now we know that the genetic material from haploid sperm combine with genetic material in haploid ova in order to establish the existence of new individuals. That is 100% certain. I'm sure there are some details of the processes involved that are not yet known, but the basic statement about genetic recombination is a 100% certain fact.

I assure you, nothing is going to happen that's going to falfify the germ theory of disease. Nothing is going to happen to falsify the idea that the genetic material from haploid sperm combine with genetic material in haploid ova in order to establish the existence of new individuals.

I realize that most people who say that stuff about never having 100% certainty and anything might be falsified are not intentionally making questionable statements. But if you really think about it and think about all the things that have been proven with 100% certainty I think you'll see that oft-employed argument as false.

 

[JohnStOnge]

SETI is what it is, I wasn't aware that they were actually trying to prove anything. Basically, they're just spelunking. It is a scientific endeavor, but it doesn't rise to the level of a test of any kind.

They are continuously testing the signals they receive for evidence that some intelligence is behind them. So far, none of their testing has suggested an intelligent origin to them. But they are testing.

 

[KittenKoder]

SETI is what it is, I wasn't aware that they were actually trying to prove anything. Basically, they're just spelunking. It is a scientific endeavor, but it doesn't rise to the level of a test of any kind.

They are continuously testing the signals they receive for evidence that some intelligence is behind them. So far, none of their testing has suggested an intelligent origin to them. But they are testing.

Actually ... not true. The reason the program started was because someone did find a radio signal, it's not a "reach out and touch someone" style signal like people are expecting, but it looks like a broadcast signal. They have found a few others, but due to the weakened state they are difficult to translate, so they just keep looking for them.

Because of SETI though we have advanced our own sciences in other areas, so the program is usually used for other purposes anyway.

 

[michiganFats]

Actually ... not true. The reason the program started was because someone did find a radio signal, it's not a "reach out and touch someone" style signal like people are expecting, but it looks like a broadcast signal. They have found a few others, but due to the weakened state they are difficult to translate, so they just keep looking for them..

This is news to me. What is your source for this?

 

[KittenKoder]

Actually ... not true. The reason the program started was because someone did find a radio signal, it's not a "reach out and touch someone" style signal like people are expecting, but it looks like a broadcast signal. They have found a few others, but due to the weakened state they are difficult to translate, so they just keep looking for them..

This is news to me. What is your source for this?

Meh ... memory from many years ago. Again, it's what started the whole project, one stray signal which was theorized to not be "static" noise.

 

[michiganFats]

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 Introduction to the Scientific Method

"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."

Let's stick with intelligent design for a bit, and let's use your post to define scientific method (because I agree with it). Even using your post as a guideline, I fail to see how intelligent design qualifies as a Theory. Proponents of ID have satisfied #1. That is all. #2 requires that God be accepted as reality, and at that point we have pseudo-science. You can't use something that hasn't been proven to prove the existence of something else.

 

[YWN666]

A scientific theory is never 100% proven. There is always a possibility that something can be discovered that will falsify it. With many theories, that has not happened, however, and just because it is not proven doesn't mean the evidence behind it is not rock solid.

See post #19 above on the germ theory of disease. I'm not saying your intention is to do this, but I think that using that statement to try to create the impression that something like the theory of evolution or theories on the impact of human activity on the climate in order create the impression that those theories are established with the highest order of certainty is misleading. There are theories that are proven with 100% certainty by any rational standard. The germ theory of disease is one of them. The investigation of how sexual reproduction works involved theories. Once people didn't understand how reproduction worked. Now we know that the genetic material from haploid sperm combine with genetic material in haploid ova in order to establish the existence of new individuals. That is 100% certain. I'm sure there are some details of the processes involved that are not yet known, but the basic statement about genetic recombination is a 100% certain fact.

I assure you, nothing is going to happen that's going to falfify the germ theory of disease. Nothing is going to happen to falsify the idea that the genetic material from haploid sperm combine with genetic material in haploid ova in order to establish the existence of new individuals.

I realize that most people who say that stuff about never having 100% certainty and anything might be falsified are not intentionally making questionable statements. But if you really think about it and think about all the things that have been proven with 100% certainty I think you'll see that oft-employed argument as false.

If something is falsifiable, that means it is possible to prove it false. The likelihood my be close to nil but that possibility exists.

 

[JohnStOnge]

If something is falsifiable, that means it is possible to prove it false. The likelihood my be close to nil but that possibility exists.

YWN, it's not possible to prove the germ theory of disease in terms of the statement that certain bacteria and viruses can cause disease in other organisms false because it is true. The idea that nothing is ever 100% true by science is a false idea. The germ theory of disease was proven by positive inference. Again, this "falsification" thing that's become popularized recently is not some rule of science. It's a representation of a philosophy articulated by Karl Popper. Normally I don't quote Wikipedia because of the problems it's had but I'll go ahead and quote from the Wikipedia article on Popper at Karl Popper - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia because I think it accurately and succinctly describes the way I've seen Popper's philosophy represented. Here's the key quote with some language underlined for emphasis:

" He also held that scientific theory, and human knowledge generally, is irreducibly conjectural or hypothetical, and is generated by the creative imagination in order to solve problems that have arisen in specific historico-cultural settings. Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false. Popper's account of the logical asymmetry between verification and falsifiability lies at the heart of his philosophy of science. It also inspired him to take falsifiability as his criterion of demarcation between what is and is not genuinely scientific: a theory should be considered scientific if and only if it is falsifiable."

The idea that a theory has to be falsifiable is not some long standing, cornerstone aspect of the scientific method. It's a philosophy introduced by a philosopher of science around the middle of the 20th century. It is not universally accepted. It is his opinion and some people agree with him. But it's based on a false premise. There are circumstances in which positive experiments or controlled observations can confirm a scientific theory.

Take the theory that dark matter exists. If it does exist and those looking for it find a way to directly observe it, it's going to be 100% proven through positive observation. It will not be falsifiable. In fact, I don't know if it's falsifiable right now because I don't know if there would be any possible way to prove with 100% certainty that it does not exist.

 

[JohnStOnge]

I'll mention that there is also a problem with Popper's contention that a single counterexample is logically decisive and shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false. Here is an example of a discussion by someone who has a problem with his outlook in that regard:

Finding the flaw in falsifiability - physicsworld.com

A quote:

"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."

Again, the "falsifiability principle" that's been all over the internet since the discussion of intelligent design issue came up is NOT part of the scientific method. And, to me, it's pretty bogus if you take a little time to think about it. It is possible to prove something to be true, and an apparent counter example could be an error.

 

[michiganFats]

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.

 

[YWN666]

If something is falsifiable, that means it is possible to prove it false. The likelihood my be close to nil but that possibility exists.

YWN, it's not possible to prove the germ theory of disease in terms of the statement that certain bacteria and viruses can cause disease in other organisms false because it is true.

If something is falsifiable, that doesn't mean it is not true.

 

[N4mddissent]

The problem I see in these discussions is the lack of recognition of what makes a scientific theory valuable- its explanatory power. Statements like "birds exist" may be an observation, but a scientific theory must explain some phenomena.

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."

ID explains nothing.

 

[KittenKoder]

The problem I see in these discussions is the lack of recognition of what makes a scientific theory valuable- its explanatory power. Statements like "birds exist" may be an observation, but a scientific theory must explain some phenomena.

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."

ID explains nothing.

The part I bolded is why people cling to it. This makes it possible for them to avoid thinking as well as avoid the challenges of learning, which keeps everything the same. It's too easy to just give up and say "god dun it" so they fall into the trap of becoming complacent.

 

[N4mddissent]

The problem I see in these discussions is the lack of recognition of what makes a scientific theory valuable- its explanatory power. Statements like "birds exist" may be an observation, but a scientific theory must explain some phenomena.

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."

ID explains nothing.

The part I bolded is why people cling to it. This makes it possible for them to avoid thinking as well as avoid the challenges of learning, which keeps everything the same. It's too easy to just give up and say "god dun it" so they fall into the trap of becoming complacent.

And that's their perogative. 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?

 

[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.

All other disagreements aside, the main point of my intitial post is that "falsifiability" is not an aspect of the scientific method. It is not a requirement for the status of an idea as a theory. Other people's opinion of what Popper said are important because what's happening when you see people assert that a theory has to be "falsifiable" is that they are adopting what they at least think is the position consistent with the concept created by Popper.

 

[JohnStOnge]

The problem I see in these discussions is the lack of recognition of what makes a scientific theory valuable- its explanatory power. Statements like "birds exist" may be an observation, but a scientific theory must explain some phenomena.

What I was doing is playing off examples used by some of those who have popularlized the idea that a theory must be falsifiable. I've specificallys seen Bigfoot used. In that instance, someone wrote that postulating that there is no such thing as Bigfoot is a theory because it can be falsified if even one Bigfoot is found while postulating that there IS such a thing as Bigfoot is NOT a theory because regardless of whether or not we actually ever find one we can never absolutely be sure some dont' exist somewhere.