Philosophy Discussion Forums

Eduk wrote:Regarding requiring falsifiability before considering something a scientific theory. That seems reasonable to me? I can't think of anything which I know which doesn't fit into this requirement?

Hm.. Karl Popper came up with a few examples, including Darwinian evolution. His ideas are (inevitably) more involved than the brief mention that was made here. To that I'd add, Behaviourism, String Theory, the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. If you're ever heard the theory that people don't really have free will and that all conscious thought is illusion, I'd suggest that was unfalsifiable as well.

As I understand it, Popper sugested that science was dependent on theories and expositions to move forward, and that only testable theories produced knowledge. However, there was no requirement for theories and expositions to be knowledge, indeed if they were knowledge, they wouldn't be theories, and thus it was not the case that only emperically tested ideas were valid for consideration. I'm a fan of Popper, but havn't studied him in any detail.

The definition you quote is interesting since it describes a skeptic who would remain neutral, rather than skeptical, when reacting to non-empirical claims. Such as the existence of God, say - as long as the person is not saying that their belief or assertion is based on empirical claims. I rarely encounter that kind of skeptic.

I don't actually fully support that definition It's been written very carefully and a little politically. I just copy pasted it a little quickly.

Please note the neutrality bit only applies when claims don't impact the practice of science. It is often the case that belief in Gods does impact the practice of science. I think you will find people are a lot more neutral to beliefs which have no impact on them than ones which do, even if they fundamentally disagree.

Karl Popper came up with a few examples, including Darwinian evolution. His ideas are (inevitably) more involved than the brief mention that was made here. To that I'd add, Behaviourism, String Theory, the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. If you're ever heard the theory that people don't really have free will and that all conscious thought is illusion, I'd suggest that was unfalsifiable as well.

Evolution by natural selection is falsifiable, string theory as I understand it is on extremely shaky ground, it's certainly not the consensus of expert opinion (but one day once it has been made falsifiable it could be). Consciousness is a tricky one, I've heard of brain damaged patients who consciously can't detect certain visual stimuli but physically react like they can (on an unconscious level). Also it's pretty clear that humans do a lot of things unconsciously such as pulling your hand away from a hot stove but if required are able to hold their hand against the hot stove and consciously override the unconscious reaction. I'm not saying that is proof but I wouldn't rule consciousness out as being unfalsifiable one day. I guess it depends on how you define consciousness. But if you want a useful definition that makes predictions then you'll need falsifiability.
I'm not really suggesting that all knowledge is falsifiable but perhaps all useful knowledge is falsifiable?

Eduk: Evolution by natural selection is falsifiable.

How so, what experiments can be performed to falsify the theory?

Eduk: But if you want a useful definition that makes predictions then you'll need falsifiability.

No you don't, merely a high level of statistical correlation, in many cases that is the most one can hope for.

Google 'evolution falsifiable' and then 'evolution experiment'
There are any number of things which would disprove evolution if found.

ChanceIsChange wrote:(...I)f nobody had doubted the geocentric model and ancient creation myths, would we have the scientifically very useful and important theories of modern cosmology and evolution?

I think you are tying the dogsled ahead of the dogs. Nobody, no skeptic doubted the geocentric model and ancient creation myths. Instead, some scientific truths uncovered proved them to be wrong.

Skepticism did not precede the negative proof. Galileo, Keppler, Doppler and Trippler were not skeptics.

eduk: There are any number of things which would disprove evolution if found.

I meant falsify experimentally the operation of natural selection, it's universal scope makes it extremely difficult to annotate and falsify.

Eduk wrote:Please note the neutrality bit only applies when claims don't impact the practice of science. It is often the case that belief in Gods does impact the practice of science.

Not directly, surely?

Eduk wrote:

Karl Popper came up with a few examples, including Darwinian evolution. His ideas are (inevitably) more involved than the brief mention that was made here. To that I'd add, Behaviourism, String Theory, the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. If you're ever heard the theory that people don't really have free will and that all conscious thought is illusion, I'd suggest that was unfalsifiable as well.

Evolution by natural selection is falsifiable,

Natural selection is falsifiable. The theory of Evolution, that is, the theory that all lifeforms arose via natural selection, seems a bit harder. I did Google as you suggested, and couldn't find any examples of falsification for this principle. The RationalWiki article was particulalry disappointing, since it seems to confuse the origin of the species with 'DNA is functional', which is an entirely different point.

Eduk wrote: But if you want a useful definition that makes predictions then you'll need falsifiability.
I'm not really suggesting that all knowledge is falsifiable but perhaps all useful knowledge is falsifiable?

I think that depends on what you are using it for. It's a useful standard for scientific evidence, but I'm not convinced it's a useful standard for any other purpose. I think that defining what is and isn't 'useful' or 'valid' by definition, involves sufficient numbers of non-falsifiable assumptions that I'm inclined to reject even the attempt to do so as problematical. Happy to be convinced otherwise though.

It also strikes me that science itself relies on unfalsifiable ideas in order to string together falsifiable hypotheses into a paradigm.

Togo1 it is a common theme amongst certain religious groups that they accept micro evolution but not macro evolution. Professional biologists say there is no such distinction. If you accept small changes over time it's not hard to imagine small changes adding up into large changes. Evolution is only contentious amongst religious groups with an agenda against it.
Also yes religious groups legislate against science based on religious beliefs. This is well documented surely? Personally I think any unreasonable claims should be challenged. It is far from the case that religious groups have a monopoly on unreasonable claims. Many people claim religion for unreasonable beliefs, personally I blame unreasonable beliefs for religion.
Regarding unfalsifiable ideas that science uses, can you be more specific?

Stay clear of discussing evolution. The evolutionists will parrot 'it is right' and the religious will parrot incredibly stupid things that only reveal their ignorance of the concept and of science.

There is no middle ground. If you carry on any further the discussion of evolution, then the discourse will devolve into an angry but polite bipartisanism of boneheaded stubbornness.

I have seen it happen enough times to know that this is what's coming if people here insist on solving the paradox of ''how can something be right that directly contradicts the scriptures.''

Discussions on evolution never end, never converge, never convince. Never convince anyone of anything that they hadn't been believing already.

I mean, carry on if you so desire, but say good-bye to discussing the original topic already.

I will also parrot (boneheadedly) that Einstein's theory of relativity is a good scientific theory. I call myself a relativist or an Einstein Gravitationalist. Or sometimes I say I follow the sceptical scientific method and measure my credulity in proportion to the evidence (I personally find cars, planes, computers, electricity, medicine, etc etc etc quite compelling). When some bloke says he can pinpoint my location on the earth using relativity and then shows me and it's correct and then some other people who don't know the first bloke do the same all the while no one else is able to do the same who refutes the claims then I find that convincing.

It is a mistake to take two diametrically opposed opinions and say that there should be a middle ground or that both opinions are equal. It is possible for two people to disagree and one person to be more correct than the other person. Stubbornly being more correct is probably not best described as stubbornness.

Eduk wrote:I will also parrot (boneheadedly) that Einstein's theory of relativity is a good scientific theory. I call myself a relativist or an Einstein Gravitationalist. Or sometimes I say I follow the sceptical scientific method and measure my credulity in proportion to the evidence (I personally find cars, planes, computers, electricity, medicine, etc etc etc quite compelling). When some bloke says he can pinpoint my location on the earth using relativity and then shows me and it's correct and then some other people who don't know the first bloke do the same all the while no one else is able to do the same who refutes the claims then I find that convincing.

It is a mistake to take two diametrically opposed opinions and say that there should be a middle ground or that both opinions are equal. It is possible for two people to disagree and one person to be more correct than the other person. Stubbornly being more correct is probably not best described as stubbornness.

In green: please note that I haven't met any people who opposed the scientific truth of the relativity theory. So why parrot it? Do you parrot the commutative nature of adding numbers and the law of the excluded middle? Why be so partial for the relativity theory?

In red: yes, it is described as stubbornness, because both parties insist that they each individually hold the absolutely and without reproach right opinion. It is more of where you come from, so to speak, than how reality compares.

In Blue: Yes, it is a mistake, I agree, and you'll notice that I hadn't implied what you call a mistake at all.

The theory of evolution is as well established as the theory of relativity. If you doubt any major scientific theory then you should be publishing papers and getting your Nobel prize. Science already has mechanisms in place for it to be improved upon. Number of people in opposition to an idea makes no difference, that is a fallacy. If I can be accused of parroting evolutionary theory than I can be accused of parroting relativity or the law of excluded middle. That was the point I was attempting to highlight.
The scientific method doesn't purport to be absolutely right or beyond reproach. It is merely the best we can do. Science is open to revision and change. Of course individual scientists are not perfect scientists and many mistakes of bias are made and held on to.

Eduk wrote:The theory of evolution is as well established as the theory of relativity. If you doubt any major scientific theory then you should be publishing papers and getting your Nobel prize.

Has anyone on this thread expressed such doubts?

Well you suggested evolution isn't falsifiable, I then pointed out that the scientific consensus is that it is.

Eduk wrote:Well you suggested evolution isn't falsifiable, I then pointed out that the scientific consensus is that it is.

No, I suggested, in line with Karl Popper, that evolution isn't falsifiable, and you started talking about religious groups and their beliefs. You then repeated a consensus that there is no difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, which apparently contradicts some point these religious groups make. That doesn't address what I said, doesn't demonstrate that evolution is falsifiable overall, and doesn't address Popper's position.

I'd point out that the idea that evolution, or string theory, or what have you, is invalid because it's not falsifiable, is yours not mine. I'm disputing the idea that something must be falsifiable in order to be valid.

Since this seems to be a sensitive subject for you, would you rather use Logic or Mathematics as an example of a valid, useful, non-falsifiable construct, rather than Evolution?