Falsifiability

[Sanoy]

er...but isn't god analytic in your explanation? You are not really creating a rational reason for one's belief about the world, your simply trading one analytic truth for another.

First and foremost you have to insert a premise from which the synthetic can follow from the analytic deductively. So if we conclude that the synthetic follows the analytic it necessitates a proper premise from which it can follow deductively. I know of no other premise that can acquire the conclusion. Postulating necessities is perfectly rational and we do it all the time. You are certainly correct that nothing is done to substantiate the premise from this alone, all it does is make the conclusion rational.

 

[Speedwell]

Think of it in the analogy of the Brain in a vat thought experiment. Or perhaps it might be easier to see this using a more modern example like the matrix. In the matrix there is a periodic table, which explains much about the world in the matrix but may or may not explain anything at all about the real world outside the matrix. The level of explanatory power says nothing about whether something is real or not

Explanatory power is all science has to offer. Anything more is metaphysics.

 

[46AND2]

First and foremost you have to insert a premise from which the synthetic can follow from the analytic deductively. So if we conclude that the synthetic follows the analytic it necessitates a proper premise from which it can follow deductively. I know of no other premise that can acquire the conclusion. Postulating necessities is perfectly rational and we do it all the time. You are certainly correct that nothing is done to substantiate the premise from this alone, all it does is make the conclusion rational.

If all that is needed is a postulated premise to make the conclusion rational, then there are infinitely many postulates other than god. Indeed, the only limitation is one's imagination.

 

[TBDude65]

You asked for it:

Homo habilis that would have lived. 2.5–1.5 mya with a cranial capacity of ~600 cc. The next link would have been Homo erectus with a cranial capacity of ~1000cc. KNM-WT 15000 (Turkana Boy) would have lived 1.5 mya and the skeleton structure shows no real difference between anatomically modern humans. The skull while smaller then the average cranial capacity of humans but close to twice that of his ancestors of 2 mya.

That means for our ancestors to have evolved it would have required a dramatic adaptive evolution of the size just under 2 mya sandwiched between two long periods of relative stasis. One such gene would have been the HARf regulatory gene involved in the early development of the human neocortex from 7 to 19 gestational weeks. With only two substitutions allowed since the common ancestor of the of 310 mya the divergence between humans and chimpanzees indicates 18 substitutions as early as 2 mya. (Nature, vol. 443, no. 7108, pp. 167-172 September 14, 2006)

That's just one example, there are others. One thing is certain, mutations are the worst explanation possible. These highly conserved genes simply don't respond well to mutations.

The ability for any morphology to change by any "drastic" amount is always an interesting example of evolution. (I only put "drastic" in quotes as this is subjective between what one person considers to be drastic versus another. I deal primarily with marine invertebrates, so "drastic" evolutionary changes are things far less "drastic" compared to most macrofauna).

Look at dogs as an excellent example of how artificial selection (human-driven selection for specific form/function/purpose) can result in drastic inter-species variability with respect to numerous morphological and anatomical traits (including brain size, cranial shape/structure, and intelligence).

The development of the vast majority of "drastic" evolutionary changes we see in the fossil record appear via punctuated equilibrium. An alternate model to gradualism for evolution (and since it has been seen that different species follow different models). Punctuated equilibrium means periods of "rapid" change in the fossil record, followed by periods of morphological stasis (stasis not necessarily meaning no variability whatsoever, but variability about some mean). This pattern in the fossil record is, in large part, due to the difficulty in finding fossils for some species at different times. Human fossils are rare as-is, but conditions that do not favor fossilization and/or remove the fossil via erosion, can exacerbate the issue for any group of organisms in the fossil record.

What you are seeing in the fossil record is a snapshot of the different species that existed through time, and some clearly over-lapped with one another. They are not direct steps to one another, it is a family tree

 

[TBDude65]

Think of it in the analogy of the Brain in a vat thought experiment. Or perhaps it might be easier to see this using a more modern example like the matrix. In the matrix there is a periodic table, which explains much about the world in the matrix but may or may not explain anything at all about the real world outside the matrix. The level of explanatory power says nothing about whether something is real or not

Again, you imagine a fantasy where the periodic table may or may not be relevant/true/factual, and that tells us what about reality? I agree that it is an interesting idea, and one humans have explored in numerous stories, but I don't agree that just because it can be imagined it is therefore plausible.

 

[Sanoy]

Again, you imagine a fantasy where the periodic table may or may not be relevant/true/factual, and that tells us what about reality? I agree that it is an interesting idea, and one humans have explored in numerous stories, but I don't agree that just because it can be imagined it is therefore plausible.

That is not what it's really about. It's about whether we are rational to claim that the world described by physics and chemistry is the real world. We can either do that, or not. If we can't it doesn't really mean anything to speak of falsefiability.

 

[Sanoy]

If all that is needed is a postulated premise to make the conclusion rational, then there are infinitely many postulates other than god. Indeed, the only limitation is one's imagination.

It's not infinite, not in any meaningful sense. There are variations to the premise, but you still need to insert one to be rational in concluding that that which is described by physics and chemistry is the real world. So what do you insert in respect to the Brain in a vat thought experiment.

 

[TBDude65]

That is not what it's really about. It's about whether we are rational to claim that the world described by physics and chemistry is the real world. We can either do that, or not. If we can't it doesn't really mean anything to speak of falsefiability.

Except what we know (understand about reality) via the scientific method is derived by being tested and verified. Again, there is clearly a subset of human knowledge attained by specific means that is competent enough to allow for us to make enough predictions that we can create products for super-specific functions. We can use medicine to treat people for illnesses because we have taken steps to verify if specific treatments work and if they can be improved or if a better alternative can be found. We use it to make computers that have specific functions for operating individual functions on your automobile so that the central computer can monitor the engine, transmission, individual wheels, ABS system, and a variety of other information in real time to make minute changes to fuel/air ratios to optimize performance.

Again, we could guess that maybe we are brains in a jar, but what has this question provided evidence-wise to our knowledge about reality? Considering that as a possibility, what predictive power has this provided such that it is a better explanation of reality than reality being as-is.

 

[Sanoy]

Except what we know (understand about reality) via the scientific method is derived by being tested and verified. Again, there is clearly a subset of human knowledge attained by specific means that is competent enough to allow for us to make enough predictions that we can create products for super-specific functions. We can use medicine to treat people for illnesses because we have taken steps to verify if specific treatments work and if they can be improved or if a better alternative can be found. We use it to make computers that have specific functions for operating individual functions on your automobile so that the central computer can monitor the engine, transmission, individual wheels, ABS system, and a variety of other information in real time to make minute changes to fuel/air ratios to optimize performance.

Again, we could guess that maybe we are brains in a jar, but what has this question provided evidence-wise to our knowledge about reality? Considering that as a possibility, what predictive power has this provided such that it is a better explanation of reality than reality being as-is.

What has physics and chemistry provided evidence-wise to our knowledge about reality? Everything you just described is also true of the matrix... predictability, progress, explanatory power, all of it was in the matrix. None of that says anything about whether it describes the real world.

 

[TBDude65]

What has physics and chemistry provided evidence-wise to our knowledge about reality? Everything you just described is also true of the matrix... predictability, explanatory power all of it was in the matrix. None of says anything about whether it's the real world.

Again, what does this do to address the question I asked? What is it about the reliability of physics and chemistry, that makes it suspect?

 

[Sanoy]

Again, what does this do to address the question I asked? What is it about the reliability of physics and chemistry, that makes it suspect?

Nothing makes it suspect, and nothing makes it real. You say that falsefiability matters, but little that you think matters is itself falseifiable synthetically.

 

[TBDude65]

Nothing makes it suspect, and nothing makes it real. You say that falsefiability matters, but little that you think matters is itself falseifiable synthetically.

Because something has failed to be falsified, does not mean that it has not been sufficiently explained and is a fact about reality. That's the reason why chemistry and physics experiments are designed and reported in a way so that specific facts can be independently verified or falsified.

So, if we look at what we have learned collectively from the scientific method (which includes the culling of previous information/studies that have been shown to be incorrect in whole or in part), we are able to verify that there are specific facts about your reality and my own, in addition to everyone else's. Again, if it weren't true universally such that any human could understand it if they tried, then we wouldn't be able to harness it to create technologies of various type and function (like the aforementioned concepts of medicine and engineering).

 

[Sanoy]

Because something has failed to be falsified, does not mean that it has not been sufficiently explained and is a fact about reality. That's the reason why chemistry and physics experiments are designed and reported in a way so that specific facts can be independently verified or falsified.

So, if we look at what we have learned collectively from the scientific method (which includes the culling of previous information/studies that have been shown to be incorrect in whole or in part), we are able to verify that there are specific facts about your reality and my own, in addition to everyone else's. Again, if it weren't true universally such that any human could understand it if they tried, then we wouldn't be able to harness it to create technologies of various type and function (like the aforementioned concepts of medicine and engineering).

Those other people would be part of the matrix too. Neo wasn't in there alone, everyone was and they also assumed their collective experience was justification of reality. In fact Neo could be in there alone with NPCs.

 

[TBDude65]

Those other people would be part of the matrix too. Neo wasn't in there alone, everyone was and they also assumed their collective experience was justification of reality. In fact Neo could be in there alone with NPCs.

Why is what may or may not be true in the imagined reality where the Matrix exists, relevant about our reality?

Perhaps I am an alien 3 galaxies away using super-sophisticated software to communicate with you across seemingly impossible distances in real time. Do you now have reason to consider this a serious possibility? Or does it violate that which we know about the ability for the use of technology (such as we are using) across such vast differences? Making the above scenario completely unsubstantiated and therefore an apparent fiction. But what have we learned about our reality by extension? All we've deduced is that we can imagine similar things by taking advantage of technology that has allowed for us to communicate in real time as long as we have access to the same technology.

 

[klutedavid]

a cat evolving wings will falsify creationism. and yet we never seen such a thing.

You have never seen a cat with wings?

 

[Sanoy]

Why is what may or may not be true in the imagined reality where the Matrix exists, relevant about our reality?

Perhaps I am an alien 3 galaxies away using super-sophisticated softwaire to communicate with you across seemingly impossible distances in real time. Do you now have reason to consider this a serious possibility? Or does it violate that which we know about the ability for the use of technology (such as we are using) across such vast differences? Making the above scenario completely unsubstantiated and therefore an apparent fiction. But what have we learned about our reality by extension? All we've deduced is that we can imagine similar things by taking advantage of technology that has allowed for us to communicate in real time as long as we have access to the same technology.

I'm using the matrix because it's easier to go through and understand the thought experiment.

The conflict over the reality of the alien is entirely analytic, because the alien is in the world in question. You could step back and say the alien is the 'mad scientist' with his hands on your brain in the thought experiment, but if you did you cannot use the same analytical reasoning that describes the world in question. You would have to use a priori reasoning, as opposed to a posterori reasoning.

 

[TBDude65]

I'm using the matrix because it's easier to go through and understand the thought experiment.

The conflict over the reality of the alien is entirely analytic, because the alien is in the world in question. You could step back and say the alien is the 'mad scientist' with his hands on your brain in the thought experiment, but if you did you cannot use the same analytical reasoning that describes the world in question. You would have to use a priori reasoning, as opposed to a posterori reasoning.

From your perspective, the alien's influence and ability is not "analytic." From your perspective based on our knowledge, the aliens abilities are supernatural

 

[Sanoy]

From your perspective, the alien's influence and ability is not "analytic." From your perspective based on our knowledge, the aliens abilities are supernatural

What the thought experiment does is effectively sever all a posterori reasoning from our thoughts about reality. What it means then to say "alien" is very limited.

 

[xianghua]

Ten million years is not much in the evolutionary time scale.

so what is too much? 20 my? 30 my?can you define it or not?

 

[xianghua]

You have never seen a cat with wings?

where? your image doesnt work btw.