Popper when asked if falsifiability is itself falsifiable or if it fails its own criteria

[RandomPoster]

When asked if falsification is itself falsifiable or if it fails its own criteria, Karl Popper responded:

“The first thing you do in a philosophy seminar when somebody proposes an idea is to say it doesn’t satisfy its own criteria. It is one of the most idiotic criticisms one can imagine!”

In your opinion, is this a valid response?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

If one can successfully argue that it does not satisfy its own criteria then said response is imbecilic.

 

[mamooth]

The concept of falsifiability doesn't work well outside of experimental physics.

For example, can we falsify the concept of a black hole with an experiment? Not really. But nobody would argue that such astrophysics isn't science.

 

[RandomPoster]

If the falsifiability principle is the demarcation of science and is itself not falsifiable, would that mean that the demarcation of science is unscientific?

 

[ding]

When asked if falsification is itself falsifiable or if it fails its own criteria, Karl Popper responded:

“The first thing you do in a philosophy seminar when somebody proposes an idea is to say it doesn’t satisfy its own criteria. It is one of the most idiotic criticisms one can imagine!”

In your opinion, is this a valid response?

No. It’s not.

 

[ding]

If the falsifiability principle is the demarcation of science and is itself not falsifiable, would that mean that the demarcation of science is unscientific?

I don’t know. Maybe. How is the concept of falsifiability not falsifiable?

 

[RandomPoster]

If the falsifiability principle is the demarcation of science and is itself not falsifiable, would that mean that the demarcation of science is unscientific?

I don’t know. Maybe. How is the concept of falsifiability not falsifiable?

Falsifiability says that in order to be scientific a theory has to be falsifiable. Since it defines falsifiability as a requirement to be scientific, as soon as a theory is deemed unfalsifiable, it becomes by falsifiability's own definition unscientific. I realize this seems circular, but you either accept falsifiability as a demarcation of science or you don't. There is no one fact that could definitively disprove falsification. Popper himself did not consider falsifiability to be falsifiable and was annoyed when asked about it.

 

[ding]

If the falsifiability principle is the demarcation of science and is itself not falsifiable, would that mean that the demarcation of science is unscientific?

I don’t know. Maybe. How is the concept of falsifiability not falsifiable?

Falsifiability says that in order to be scientific a theory has to be falsifiable. Since it defines falsifiability as a requirement to be scientific, as soon as a theory is deemed unfalsifiable, it becomes by falsifiability's own definition unscientific. I realize this seems circular, but you either accept falsifiability as a demarcation of science or you don't. There is no one fact that could definitively disprove falsification. Popper himself did not consider falsifiability to be falsifiable and was annoyed when asked about it.

The concept of falsifiability itself is not scientific. Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions about nature. It seems to me that the concept of falsifiability is philosophical in nature.

But it is funny that he got annoyed when it got flipped around on him.

 

[zaangalewa]

When asked if falsification is itself falsifiable or if it fails its own criteria, Karl Popper responded:

“The first thing you do in a philosophy seminar when somebody proposes an idea is to say it doesn’t satisfy its own criteria. It is one of the most idiotic criticisms one can imagine!”

In your opinion, is this a valid response?

No. Self-reference is a basic element of philosophy. Example: The way to peace is peaceful or not a way to peace.

 

[zaangalewa]

If the falsifiability principle is the demarcation of science and is itself not falsifiable, would that mean that the demarcation of science is unscientific?

I don’t know. Maybe. How is the concept of falsifiability not falsifiable?

Thesis: "Swans are [only] white"
Falsification: "Swans are not [only] white"

Now I falsify the falsification "Swans are not not [only] white" = "Swans are [only] white"


But what happens really, when we think about such a "problem"?

I have a concept: "Swans are white" (up to this moment I saw always only white swans).

Now I take a more exact look into reality and I am able to find a foto of a black swan somewhere on the other side of the globe. The foto is trustworthy.
Now I'm able to say "My former concept was wrong - it has to be modified". But what is the best way how to modify it? The falsification "Swans are not white" makes not a big sense, because "[Most] Swans are white" is still a true sentence. Black and white are not colors. Additive color mxing: black is the absence of color - white is a mix of all colors. Subtractive color mixing: black is the mix of all colors - white is the absence of color.

So the "best" new concept - specially if we think about Occams razor too - seems to be now: "Swans are colorless". (As long as we will not find a colored swan).

The problem now: No one understands intuitively the sentence "Swans are colorless". So the most people will say: "Swans are white - but I heard black swans exist too".

So if you think now about the word "falsification" - is this really what we are doing when we think and learn?

 

[ding]

If the falsifiability principle is the demarcation of science and is itself not falsifiable, would that mean that the demarcation of science is unscientific?

I don’t know. Maybe. How is the concept of falsifiability not falsifiable?

Thesis: "Swans are [only] white"
Falsification: "Swans are not [only] white"

Now I falsify the falsification "Swans are not not [only] white" = "Swans are [only] white"


But what happens really, when we think about such a "problem"?

I have a concept: "Swans are white" (up to this moment I saw always only white swans).

Now I take a more exact look into reality and I am able to find a foto of a black swan somewhere on the other side of the globe. The foto is trustworthy.
Now I'm able to say "My former concept was wrong - it has to be modified". But what is the best way how to modify it? The falsification "Swans are not white" makes not a big sense, because "[Most] Swans are white" is still a true sentence. Black and white are not colors. Additive color mxing: black is the absence of color - white is a mix of all colors. Subtractive color mixing: black is the mix of all colors - white is the absence of color.

So the "best" new concept - specially if we think about Occams razor too - seems to be now: "Swans are colorless". (As long as we will not find a colored swan).

The problem now: No one understands intuitively the sentence "Swans are colorless". So the most people will say: "Swans are white - but I heard black swans exist too".

So if you think now about the word "falsification" - is this really what we are doing when we think and learn?

The concept of falsifiability in the context of this discussion is that it is a statement that can’t be falsified.

Such as God doesn’t exist.

 

[zaangalewa]

If the falsifiability principle is the demarcation of science and is itself not falsifiable, would that mean that the demarcation of science is unscientific?

I don’t know. Maybe. How is the concept of falsifiability not falsifiable?

Thesis: "Swans are [only] white"
Falsification: "Swans are not [only] white"

Now I falsify the falsification "Swans are not not [only] white" = "Swans are [only] white"


But what happens really, when we think about such a "problem"?

I have a concept: "Swans are white" (up to this moment I saw always only white swans).

Now I take a more exact look into reality and I am able to find a foto of a black swan somewhere on the other side of the globe. The foto is trustworthy.
Now I'm able to say "My former concept was wrong - it has to be modified". But what is the best way how to modify it? The falsification "Swans are not white" makes not a big sense, because "[Most] Swans are white" is still a true sentence. Black and white are not colors. Additive color mxing: black is the absence of color - white is a mix of all colors. Subtractive color mixing: black is the mix of all colors - white is the absence of color.

So the "best" new concept - specially if we think about Occams razor too - seems to be now: "Swans are colorless". (As long as we will not find a colored swan).

The problem now: No one understands intuitively the sentence "Swans are colorless". So the most people will say: "Swans are white - but I heard black swans exist too".

So if you think now about the word "falsification" - is this really what we are doing when we think and learn?

The concept of falsifiability in the context of this discussion is that it is a statement that can’t be falsified.

Replace the expression "falsification" just simple with a multiplication *(-1) then it is more clear that this changes not really something in the structure. Specially not if you falsify the falsification. I don't know how many millions of students were frustrated, because they never understood the concept "falsification". Perhaps that's not so astonishing, because there is just simple not a lot to understand.

Such as God doesn’t exist.

I don't know what you like to say with this sentence.

 

[ding]

I don't know what you like to say with this sentence.

It's an example of something that can't be falsified.

 

[ding]

If the falsifiability principle is the demarcation of science and is itself not falsifiable, would that mean that the demarcation of science is unscientific?

I don’t know. Maybe. How is the concept of falsifiability not falsifiable?

Thesis: "Swans are [only] white"
Falsification: "Swans are not [only] white"

Now I falsify the falsification "Swans are not not [only] white" = "Swans are [only] white"


But what happens really, when we think about such a "problem"?

I have a concept: "Swans are white" (up to this moment I saw always only white swans).

Now I take a more exact look into reality and I am able to find a foto of a black swan somewhere on the other side of the globe. The foto is trustworthy.
Now I'm able to say "My former concept was wrong - it has to be modified". But what is the best way how to modify it? The falsification "Swans are not white" makes not a big sense, because "[Most] Swans are white" is still a true sentence. Black and white are not colors. Additive color mxing: black is the absence of color - white is a mix of all colors. Subtractive color mixing: black is the mix of all colors - white is the absence of color.

So the "best" new concept - specially if we think about Occams razor too - seems to be now: "Swans are colorless". (As long as we will not find a colored swan).

The problem now: No one understands intuitively the sentence "Swans are colorless". So the most people will say: "Swans are white - but I heard black swans exist too".

So if you think now about the word "falsification" - is this really what we are doing when we think and learn?

The concept of falsifiability in the context of this discussion is that it is a statement that can’t be falsified.

Replace the expression "falsification" just simple with a multiplication *(-1) then it is more clear that this changes not really something in the structure. Specially not if you falsify the falsification. I don't know how many millions of students were frustrated, because they never understood the concept "falsification". Perhaps that's not so astonishing, because there is just simple not a lot to understand.

Such as God doesn’t exist.

I don't know what you like to say with this sentence.

No, I think I get it.

 

[zaangalewa]

I don't know what you like to say with this sentence.

It's an example of something that can't be falsified.

As well the sentence "god exists" and the sentence "god not exists" makes not a big sense in philosophy and/or science. For believers in god it's not clear what the word "exists" means in case of the expression "the creator". The question "Did god exist when he had created existence per se"? shows this very well. God transcendends existence - our existence is in this case part of a meta-existence of god. And for the believers in atheism the question is just simple: "Why exists something at all?" or "Why exists existence?".

We imagine for example when we go home back to our father that our existence here ends: We die. But this is not clear too, because we were existing before our birth too. Perhaps it's indeed possible to become reborn and to live more than only one life too. But it's also possible to go home into the meta-existence of god directly after our death. But perhaps we are meta-existing and existing the same time too. An interesting detail: "Everyone dies - not so I" is indeed a true sentence, because we never will be able to make the experience of our own death - but we are easily able to see the death of all other existing things.

 

[ding]

I don't know what you like to say with this sentence.

It's an example of something that can't be falsified.

As well the sentence "god exists" and the sentence "god not exists" makes not a big sense in philsophy and/or science. For believers in god it's not clear what the word "exists" means in case of the "the creator". The question "Did god exist when he had created existence per se"? shows this very well. God transcendends existence - our existence is in this case part of a meta-existence of god. And for the believers in atheism the question is just simle: "Why exists something at all?" or "Why exists existence?".

Agreed, God transcends our existence. He created space and time from nothing which is our reality. Our reality could cease to exist but God's reality would continue on. Eternal and unchanging.

 

[zaangalewa]

Erinwltr

And what exactly is "funny". Are you able to verbalize this?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Falsifiability is an axiom of science.

The axioms of science are derived from philosophy of science and theology, not from science.

Therefore falsifiability being falsifiable is not germane to science itself.

 

[PK1]

Falsifiability is an axiom of science.

The axioms of science are derived from philosophy of science and theology, not from science.

Therefore falsifiability being falsifiable is not germane to science itself.

Falsifiability within an EMPIRICAL context (our universe) is an axiom of science ... and its methods (philosophy of physics, philosophy of biology, philosophy of psychology, etc).

Theories are based on at least some direct observable evidence. More evidence, stronger theory, especially if data are reproduced by multiple, independent researchers.
If one can reproduce cause/effects, such as quantum entanglement, then scientific knowledge moves from theory, probability to fact.

 

[PK1]

I don't know what you like to say with this sentence.

It's an example of something that can't be falsified.

As well the sentence "god exists" and the sentence "god not exists" makes not a big sense in philsophy and/or science. For believers in god it's not clear what the word "exists" means in case of the "the creator". The question "Did god exist when he had created existence per se"? shows this very well. God transcendends existence - our existence is in this case part of a meta-existence of god. And for the believers in atheism the question is just simle: "Why exists something at all?" or "Why exists existence?".

Agreed, God transcends our existence. He created space and time from nothing which is our reality. Our reality could cease to exist but God's reality would continue on. Eternal and unchanging.

Sorry to say, but your beliefs are fabrications ... without empiricism and falsibility.

Why not fabricate two (2) “Gods” or gods, or more? Why not make up a “reality” where one god’s domain ends and another one’s starts? Or, both interact?

Anyone can make up “convenient” ideas, but our reality needs SOME empiricism, or it’s not falsifiable or science (knowledge).
Religious faith is equivalent to “i don’t know, but it sounds good to ME”.