Science isn't falsifiable?

[Speakpigeon]

Ok.

I guess that's not something you or I could prove either way.

I seem to have the advantage that my view is obviously true.
EB

I think you've missed the point.

I can't see why you could have that impression. My reply still stand.

I was objecting to your claim that "The "scientific enterprise" comes with the claim that science is the best way to know/predict/etc. the (material) world.". It doesn't.

I guess that's not something you or I could prove either way.

I seem to have the advantage that my view is obviously true.

You seem to think I'm objecting to the claim that science is the best way to gain knowledge about our world. I'm not.

I can't see why you could have that impression.

I would suggest that you better assumed people have understood what you've said and reply accordingly.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

And yet another point of agreement. This is so unfalsifiably amazing!

Haven't you changed your position though?

I remember a long while ago saying here (or there) in essence that Einstein had falsified Newton, only to get much in way of disapproving comments. But, can't remember if you were one of those making these comments. But I don't remember you concurring either. So, perhaps, either you changed your position or you've become bolder.

So, either way, congratulations.
EB

The problem with what you are saying is that falsification is disproof.

Actually, no, falsification is not disproof because disproof is less than falsification. Falsification is a metaphysical operation, disproof is achieve by some process with an objective output that people agree to regard as conclusive. It's conceivable that a proof could prove false or prove true but we don't know that any really does that.

Still, I agree that you don't falsify a theory any more that you could confirm it to be true, or at least that you probably wouldn't know if ever you did but I was surfing on your own, unqualified use of the term falsification. So, go and wash your mouth.

Anyway, if no real falsification, then no scientific theory that we would know to be true either. I'd go along with that.

Falsifications is simply that which falsifies explains more of the data than previous theory explains. So yes, I am one of those yapping about Einstein does not replace or disprove Newton. It simply explains better and more completely.

Yes, but you're still saying that Einstein falsifies Newton.

Also, I wonder what Newton would have made of that. And all the scientists who do believe that what science says not only is true but they know somehow it's true.

This notion was proposed by a philosopher who was examining scientific analysis so he came with a bit of true false baggage. He has since concluded that science does not actually advance through falsification, rather he concludes science extends through being more inclusive. It begins to nibble at hierarchical models of science and abstraction ladders. Perhaps everything will be explained by a physical equation.

I doubt it very much.
EB

 

[The AntiChris]

I was objecting to your claim that "The "scientific enterprise" comes with the claim that science is the best way to know/predict/etc. the (material) world.". It doesn't.

I guess that's not something you or I could prove either way.

This is a dispute about the meaning of words. Whilst this is not something that is strictly amenable to proof, it is possible to provide evidence of accepted/common usage. The best place to start would be independent definitions (not individual opinions). Try  Science for a start.

I seem to have the advantage that my view is obviously true.

Then you'll have no problem providing evidence in support of your assertion.

 

[Malintent]

"Science" is unfalsifiable?

that is like saying that the word "language" is "unspellable", because before you have language you must first have an alphabet.

It is objectively true that objective truth can only be determined via the same mechanisms that "the bloody obvious" is determined.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I guess that's not something you or I could prove either way.

This is a dispute about the meaning of words. Whilst this is not something that is strictly amenable to proof, it is possible to provide evidence of accepted/common usage. The best place to start would be independent definitions (not individual opinions). Try  Science for a start.

Definitions independent of what?! All definitions are given by human beings and where do I look to check that Wiki provides a definition independent of the scientific lobby people?

Beside I'm not interested in Wiki's opinion.

So what about arguing your view?

I seem to have the advantage that my view is obviously true.

Then you'll have no problem providing evidence in support of your assertion.

I just told you none of us could prove his view and now you're asking me to do it?! All you have to do to prove me wrong is to argue your view. Seems to me you can't.
EB

 

[The AntiChris]

I seem to have the advantage that my view is obviously true.

Then you'll have no problem providing evidence in support of your assertion.

I just told you none of us could prove his view and now you're asking me to do it?! All you have to do to prove me wrong is to argue your view. Seems to me you can't.
EB

But you're the one making the positive claim. I guess you agree with the theistic argument which insists that since no one has proved the non-existence of their god then their beliefs are perfectly rational.

Anyway, it seems you're only interested in making unsupported assertions which is a little pointless on a discussion board.

 

[Underseer]

This is a common tactic that creationists use to claim that all of science is false, therefore creationism is true.

It's pure nonsense. We are communicating this over the Internet using computer devices that are pretty convincing evidence that science isn't false, and even if it was, disproving science would not prove creationism.

If you want to refute the argument, science isn't a truth claim, it's a method for evaluating truth claims. Creationists honestly don't know the difference between an argument, premise, and a conclusion.

 

[abaddon]

I think generally the point is not that all of science is false, rather that it's not complete. There are the creationists that want to dismiss or limit biological evolution and the ones that figure cosmic evolution needs a push by a “prime mover”. Both want science seen as useful in a few ways but very limited.

They see science as the methodology of metaphysical naturalism, so they make a jab at it to make their case against MN stronger. Naturalists and empiricists cannot show there isn’t an invisible realm populated with spirits so therefore it’s reasonable to postulate such a thing. With MN "proved" to not have proved itself, such invisibles aren't just possible but they can be deduced by pure reason because something eternal is necessary to explain why anything exists at all, since nature is temporal and cannot explain its own origin (if it all started with the Big Bang then where'd the BB come from?). Whereas something eternal needs no such explanation.

So it’s not a denial that science works at least sometimes, rather it’s a way of saying it’s limited and doubtable and if you use it as the basis for making a naturalistic philosophy then you’re limited by "the blinders" of your ideology if you won’t accept that a powerful invisible eternal being makes the visible temporal stuff of existence happen.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I seem to have the advantage that my view is obviously true.

Then you'll have no problem providing evidence in support of your assertion.

I just told you none of us could prove his view and now you're asking me to do it?! All you have to do to prove me wrong is to argue your view. Seems to me you can't.
EB

But you're the one making the positive claim.

And I already accepted a long while ago that I wasn't going to prove anything: "I guess that's not something you or I could prove either way." The only avenue left for you then was to argue your view not try and get me to argue something.

I guess you agree with the theistic argument which insists that since no one has proved the non-existence of their god then their beliefs are perfectly rational.

I'm not sure anything is "perfectly rational". Usually our claims break down when we try to make them somehow perfect.

And you would have to define rationality because it's more likely than not we disagree about what it is. I just read something (in French, sorry) about rationality that I like very much. It says mainstream sociology is mistake in its approach to rationality, basically that rationality is rationality of your actions, a sort of Behaviourist theory of rationality if you like. The guy is arguing for taking into account what people believe and want. In short, you are rational if you use the proper means to achieve what you want based on what you believe. It certainly seems to rebrand a big chunk of what people do from "perfectly" idiotic to "perfectly" rational. And, according to this view, you can be both dead wrong and "perfectly" rational.

My view will probably fall in between, although I haven't looked into the details of what he says. Essentially, I don't believe that human beings are too good at logical calculation. I expect the mind to get it wrong quite easily, perhaps essentially for reason of frequent emotional upset in the brain and I don't see emotions as rooted in beliefs. In other words, emotions and such play havoc in the rational tableau proposed by this theory of rationality.

Still, it would be rational for example to look into the possible existence of God on the belief that god exists and there's no proof that he doesn't. But I think it would be irrational to put everything at stake on this unique argument. Spend a little time and energy, not start WWIII. I'm spending a substantial chunk of my time looking into the possibility that a whole science (I'm not saying which one) is dead wrong on the basis that I don't like their basic principles and they can't justify them, let along proove anything. I think it's a rational thing to be doing but I review my stance along the way and I tried to understand what these people were saying. I doubt that many of the religiously inclined really try to understand the ToE for example. so, I think it's a matter of proportionality, somewhat in the line of Pascal's wager. It's rational to minimally believe in god on this basic, but it would be completely off the scale of irrationality to start a religious war on this basis.

Anyway, it seems you're only interested in making unsupported assertions which is a little pointless on a discussion board.

To put some perspective on this let's remind our readers of what is the unsupported claim you are referring to:

"The "scientific enterprise" comes with the claim that science is the best way to know/predict/etc. the (material) world."​

And then you said yourself that you agree with the idea science is indeed the best way to know/predict/etc. the (material) world so your disagreement is merely about my statement that the scientific enterprise comes with that claim. I think my statement is impossible to argue conclusively for or against. I already said so. But you keep ignoring what I say. Well, you argue it if you want to.
EB

 

[The AntiChris]

To put some perspective on this let's remind our readers of what is the unsupported claim you are referring to:

"The "scientific enterprise" comes with the claim that science is the best way to know/predict/etc. the (material) world."​

Yes.

I'm beginning to think you don't actually know what you mean by this claim.

And then you said yourself that you agree with the idea science is indeed the best way to know/predict/etc. the (material) world so your disagreement is merely about my statement that the scientific enterprise comes with that claim.

Yes.

I think my statement is impossible to argue conclusively for or against.

I've never asked for a "conclusive" argument. All I want is some justification for your assertion but I've had absolutely nothing from you. As I said earlier, I really don't think you know what you mean by "comes with the the claim".

 

[Speakpigeon]

I'm beginning to think you don't actually know what you mean by this claim.

I meant what it says.

But I suspect that you interpret it as something else. My claim can't possibly be defeated since it is so vague but I can conceive somebody contriving some falsifiable interpretation. That's probably you.

I think my statement is impossible to argue conclusively for or against.

I've never asked for a "conclusive" argument. All I want is some justification for your assertion but I've had absolutely nothing from you.

My claim is self-explaining. Either it's true or it isn't. I accept I couldn't argue it. I'm so sorry.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Speakpigeon wrote:

.... falsification is not disproof because disproof is less than falsification. Falsification is a metaphysical operation, disproof is achieve by some process with an objective output that people agree to regard as conclusive. It's conceivable that a proof could prove false or prove true but we don't know that any really does that.

Still, I agree that you don't falsify a theory any more that you could confirm it to be true, or at least that you probably wouldn't know if ever you did but I was surfing on your own, unqualified use of the term falsification. So, go and wash your mouth.

Anyway, if no real falsification, then no scientific theory that we would know to be true either. I'd go along with that.

Scientific experiments need be, falsifiable, testable and conditionally objectively disprovable, to be useful empirical experiments. That is to say, by some method of objective material manipulation an experiment must generate results that either affirm or contradict an hypothesis based on existing scientific theory. A result that contradicts theory, if it is replicated, provides basis for generating new theory that better explains existing evidence.

The notion that something is true is in the realm of only the philosopher, and since nothing can be exhaustively tested, means it cannot be falsified. Scientists' goal is to find the rules of the physical world, some people call this reality, which leads to the misunderstanding that philosophers and scientist are working with the same objectives and language.

Sp whatever the basis for your critique if it squares with what I just wrote we don't disagree. ...another case of using negative to enforce relativity.

 

[Malintent]

My claim is self-explaining.

Only definitions can be "self-explaining". claims require a universe, with understandable and consistent rules, an environment to operate in, and an observer to evaluate the claim... you give yourself far too much credit and leeway.

Either it's true or it isn't.

.. or it's the third choice, "invalid".. or a fourth choice, "null". Please evaluate the following statement as either true or false:
"The poster known as "SpeakPigeon has stopped raping children" Is that true ("that you used to rape children, but have recently given up the hobby") or is that false ("you still rape children")?

I accept I couldn't argue it.

Then you should accept that there is no reason for anyone to consider it valid.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Speakpigeon wrote:

.... falsification is not disproof because disproof is less than falsification. Falsification is a metaphysical operation, disproof is achieve by some process with an objective output that people agree to regard as conclusive. It's conceivable that a proof could prove false or prove true but we don't know that any really does that.

Still, I agree that you don't falsify a theory any more that you could confirm it to be true, or at least that you probably wouldn't know if ever you did but I was surfing on your own, unqualified use of the term falsification. So, go and wash your mouth.

Anyway, if no real falsification, then no scientific theory that we would know to be true either. I'd go along with that.

Scientific experiments need be, falsifiable, testable and conditionally objectively disprovable, to be useful empirical experiments.

People find things useful or not but not necessarily because of anything "testable" or "disprovable". You are expressing your beliefs as a sciency type and I can't blame you.

Still, I see the empirical as starting with my subjective experience and I assess usefulness in terms of my beliefs and desires as per my subjective experience of them. I suspect everybody does that and I suspect our ancestors survived in an unforgiving nature by doing just that, although I accept that it's been a matter of being lucky. I can't say I am real confident that humanity will keep surviving though. I think that's because as we are pushing the envelop our luck may come to run out faster so to speak. In which case the usefulness you see in some things as opposed to others may prove illusory. I'm not trying to argue for a change of direction because I accept I have no idea where to go best. Still, I think that what most people are able to articulate as to their strategy in life can only be founded at best on approximations and more often than they would accept on illusion. Science has pluses but don't overestimate its value. Science can only be relatively useful at best and there's no good reason to accept that it's been useful overall.

That is to say, by some method of objective material manipulation an experiment must generate results that either affirm or contradict an hypothesis based on existing scientific theory. A result that contradicts theory, if it is replicated, provides basis for generating new theory that better explains existing evidence.

You do that, by all means, but don't expect ordinary folks to hold their breath until you guys found a way to solve their problems as they see them. We're only human and we do what we have to do. So science will have to keep competing for budget money and it's conceivable that some of that will dry up in a not so distant future. It's even conceivable humanity would reverse it's course to ever more knowledge and start instead to lose it's accumulation of it.

The notion that something is true is in the realm of only the philosopher, and since nothing can be exhaustively tested, means it cannot be falsified. Scientists' goal is to find the rules of the physical world, some people call this reality, which leads to the misunderstanding that philosophers and scientist are working with the same objectives and language.

The notion that something is true is in the realm of everybody on this planet. Read on logic. What's called deviant logics are recognised as not making sense to start with. Now, there's an idea that's been floating around since essentially the advent of Quantum Physics I think, although philosophers have discussed it well before that, that what we take to be the real world isn't much of a real world at all and that any actual real world would have to lie squarely outside our conception of reality, making all our statements about it irredeemably false, i.e. not true. With this view comes the redeeming idea that what we take to be the real world but isn't still has some degree of usefulness so that it's still a good idea to keep believing in it. More to the point, we wouldn't know what else to believe in if we were to let go of that. Desperate times...

Sp whatever the basis for your critique if it squares with what I just wrote we don't disagree. ...another case of using negative to enforce relativity.

I can't agree with you because your view seems simplistic to me but I'm broadly sympathetic to your drive.
EB