Falsifiabilty Principle

[fuzzyh]

Have any of you read about the Falsifiabilty Principle? I'm getting ready to write a paper on it and I thought I'd see what you guys think about it. I know that Antony Flew was the main proponent and as soon as I get my book I'm going to read New Essays in Philosophical Theology which relates to that.

Does anyone here know others that have promoted this view? I remember reading someone who was a philosopher of science that had a similar view, but I don't remember if it was Quine or not.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Check out Karl Popper.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[JGL53]

A good example of a falsifiable theory is evolution.

A good example of a nonfalsifiable theory is creationism, so-called "intelligent design".

 

[fuzzyh]

I knew that Evolution vs ID would come up. I actually have to say here that for some people, I don't desire to mention names, evolution is unfalsifiable. That said, if you feel that creationism is unfalsifiable please look into the writings of Hugh Ross. He has promoted a view in creationism that there needs to a falsifiability to the theory. At least in the sense that statements like

1. If creationism is true we would expect X.

X being something that is not known now, but will probably be known in the future.

2. X is found
3. Therefore creationism is true.

Thanks for the info about Popper. I don't have time or money to order his book before my paper, so I'll check the local college library. My paper will be primarily about falsifiability especially related to Christian truth claims, but there will be a need to study the falsifiability principle more.

 

[us38]

1. If creationism is true we would expect X.

X being something that is not known now, but will probably be known in the future.

2. X is found
3. Therefore creationism is true.

That a prediciton, not really falsifiability. For certain X in certain theories, it is impossible to say that X can't be found, and thus the prediction can't be falsified. Here's a better general statement:

a->~b
a is not found.
therefore b is assumed.

 

[fuzzyh]

My bad. I even knew that, it just didn't come to my mind. I need an honest correction every now and then. If I didn't, I would come here.

 

[bro]

Have any of you read about the Falsifiabilty Principle? I'm getting ready to write a paper on it and I thought I'd see what you guys think about it. I know that Antony Flew was the main proponent and as soon as I get my book I'm going to read New Essays in Philosophical Theology which relates to that.

Haven't you heard? Anthony Flew is now a Christian (you'll find an interview on the net). He makes some fairly ignorant remarks about Islam, which is ironic because the Qur'aan and the Prophet have made clear unambiguous predictions which have been eminently falsifiable.

 

[JGL53]

Haven't you heard? Anthony Flew is now a Christian (you'll find an interview on the net). He makes some fairly ignorant remarks about Islam, which is ironic because the Qur'aan and the Prophet have made clear unambiguous predictions which have been eminently falsifiable.

A christian? I thought he just bought into the design argument, which makes him a deist.

 

[bro]

thanks for correcting me. the interview i referred to was with habermas.

 

[billwald]

Evolution, the science logically could be divorced from evolution, the history of. History is an art, not a science because it is not experimentally predictive and not falsifiable in the same sense as science. It is immaterial that many of the arts use technical stuff. Technology does not science make.

For that matter, evolution is a biological principle but is not a (free standing) science. Why? Because it is not experimentally predictive. An experiment will not predict what change (in dna?) will occur. Neither is it falsifiable in the same sense as a physics problem.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

The principle of falsifiability stated in its most austere way (essentially that a theory is refuted if any evidence is found contrary to it *at all*) illuminates the distinction between the philosophical theorist and the working scientists.

The theorist is willing to make such an absolute claim.

But the fact is that under that claim, there is *no* science. Every theory we have has been falsified and thus ought to be rejected.

The working scientist is not concerned with falsifiability. The working scientist is concerned with how well a theory approximates the evidence. A good theory is one that does a better job at approximating the evidence than a bad theory.

Or if we want to get more into the nuts and bolts of real science the goodness of a theory is related to the difficulty in getting a result out of the theory related to the accuracy needed in the problem at hand.

So while General Relativity is better than Newtonian Gravity in the sense of being a more accurate theory of gravity, Newtonian Gravity is good enough to get us to the moon and much easier to perform calculations in. There is no need to bother with the much more complicated calculations in Relativity for such a purpose.

While falsifiability might *sound* nice, it is too far removed from real scientific endeavor to be a useful principle.

 

[JGL53]

...For that matter, evolution is a biological principle but is not a (free standing) science. Why? Because it is not experimentally predictive. An experiment will not predict what change (in dna?) will occur. Neither is it falsifiable in the same sense as a physics problem.

Evolution certainly is falsifiable. If suddenly, in many places all over the world, actual scientists (not creationists) found many fossils out of place in the various geological layers or stratums, that would tend to disprove it. If DNA studies found more similarities in sequence between, say, butterflies and whales, than between humans and whales, then that would tend to cause serious questions. And I'm sure a trained scientist (which I am not) could provide you with many other observations that could disprove evolution - IF and WHEN they came to fore.

The fact that this never happens really tends to prove evolution beyond a reasonable (scientific) doubt - just like there were 15 independent lines of evidence converging on and pointing to you as the murderer of someone, and no evidence pointing to anyone else, the jury would draw the logical conclusion and vote "guilty".

This is the case with evolution.

 

[fuzzyh]

First off, it seems like the falsifiability principle is less about making something false and more about making something meaningless. There is a different. I can make statements that are true or false or meaningless. At least that's my read from New Essays In Philosophical Theology edited by Flew.


Secondly, if I follow your argument for the falsifiability of evolution. Then I could easily create an argument that would be falsifiable about God. I think the best explanation is that the falsifiability is improperly used in forensic science (Looking at the past and coming up with hypothesis) and more about operation science. Under, forensic science one could easily come up with a theory is reality but proven wrong because there is no way to falsify it. Of course, this would the scientific use of the principle of falsifiability.

 

[JGL53]

... Secondly, if I follow your argument for the falsifiability of evolution. Then I could easily create an argument that would be falsifiable about God...

I utterly doubt you can. Do it and make me a believer.

 

[fuzzyh]

I'll work on it and give you a private msg if I come up with something. Perhaps I spoke amiss about easily, but I still think it's possible.

 

[JGL53]

I'll work on it and give you a private msg if I come up with something. Perhaps I spoke amiss about easily, but I still think it's possible.

Well, good luck with that - I'm rooting for you.

At present though, my understanding is that a creator god is as non-falsifiable a claim as the claim that a cohort of green and purple-stripped fire-breathing dragons live in the interior of Neptune, who shoot evil rays out of their eyes which strike earth at various times, causing Tsunamis, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, super volcanic eruptions (like the ones that formed Yellowstone) - or the claim that an invisible five mile tall invisible pixie lives at the bottom of the Mariana Trench in the Pacific, who emerges occasionally to sprinkle invisible magical pixie dust on those it favors, causing their lottery numbers to come up.

 

[fuzzyh]

Well, I could tell you that the Principle of Falsifiability at least as present by Antony Flew in relationship to religion is probably either self-defeating or merely a dogmatic statement. I'm not really seeing a particular reason why I should accept that criteria to test for meaningfulness. Now perhaps you could qualify it enough to make it no longer self-defeating, however that is the same problem that it is supposed to help deal with about God.

I might add. It's been extremely pleasant to have an intelligent conversation on this board. Perhaps, it's my own humility shining through and making it more enjoyable. Many times I feel like both Christians and Agnostics/Atheists have too much of an axe to grind to listen to each other. Heck, I'm certain that I've been down that road more than once.

 

[JGL53]

Many times I feel like both Christians and Agnostics/Atheists have too much of an axe to grind to listen to each other. Heck, I'm certain that I've been down that road more than once...

I can't speak for anyone else but, as for me, I just enjoy the subjects of cultural anthropology and general psychology - and actually participating in an active study of such on this forum. What never fails to fascinate me is the variety of reasons that various individuals here come up with to justify a belief and conviction that some particular or sectarian mythic narrative is in fact actually literal and historically true.

If I can help someone to come over from the Dark Side into the light then I actually have served a good purpose here. If not - well, at least we have all had a good time.

Anyway, good luck on your quest to understand and correctly apply the "Principle of Falsifiability" - whatever the heck it actually means.

 

[fuzzyh]

Well, I disagree with coming over the light side. But, I certainly don't mind a little debate. And yes, my views about God and Christianity have changed over time. I think it's a little to quick to judge the Bible is entirely mythical or fictional. I'm not certain whether your hang up is miracles or documents, but I truly have no interest in debating that right now.

I will say that since I've started studying philosophy, some perhaps many of my views had changed. Instead of being simply a belief that I held because my pastor taught that, they became much more thought out. I am on staff at a church and I now disagree with certain things that my Sr Pastor teaches. When I do, I tend to have pretty good reasons for the different views.

If you'd like to know what the Principle of Falsifiability means, at least presented by Antony Flew when he wrote his fairly famous parable about the two explorers finding a garden, you can look on Page 98 of New Essays in Philosophical Theology (which by the way is a most excellent read, especially the section on religious discourse).