Reality is not scientific.

[lawtonfogle]

Yes, this is a nit pick, but a fun one...

If some theory about the universe is true, then it should not be falsifiable (outside of bad science happening), thus it is not scientific.

Does a more rigorous definition fix this problem?

Also a bit of a different issue. If something is derived, need it be falsifiable to be scientific? For example... Lets say we know all dogs are mammals, we know all mammals have X (don't worry about how we know this), thus we know all dogs have X, but for what ever reason, if one were to try to form an hypothesis 'all dogs have X', it would be unfalsifiable. As long as the premises are scientific, does the deduction from them have to be falsifiable for it to be scientific?

 

[Tomk80]

Yes, this is a nit pick, but a fun one...

If some theory about the universe is true, then it should not be falsifiable (outside of bad science happening), thus it is not scientific.

Does a more rigorous definition fix this problem?

Yes. The problem being that you need to define falsifiability more rigorously. In science, falsifiability refers to the testability of a theory, not to reality. Therefore, a completely correct, scientific description of the universe would still be falsifiable in theory, although it could not be falsified in practice (given that it would be true).

Also a bit of a different issue. If something is derived, need it be falsifiable to be scientific? For example... Lets say we know all dogs are mammals, we know all mammals have X (don't worry about how we know this), thus we know all dogs have X, but for what ever reason, if one were to try to form an hypothesis 'all dogs have X', it would be unfalsifiable. As long as the premises are scientific, does the deduction from them have to be falsifiable for it to be scientific?

I'm not sure I'm following you here. "All dogs have X" would still be falsifiable, simply find a dog that has X. Again, that this would in practice be impossible because in practice all dogs would have X, doesn't mean it couldn't in principle be falsified by finding a dog without X.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Yes. The problem being that you need to define falsifiability more rigorously. In science, falsifiability refers to the testability of a theory, not to reality. Therefore, a completely correct, scientific description of the universe would still be falsifiable in theory, although it could not be falsified in practice (given that it would be true).


I'm not sure I'm following you here. "All dogs have X" would still be falsifiable, simply find a dog that has X. Again, that this would in practice be impossible because in practice all dogs would have X, doesn't mean it couldn't in principle be falsified by finding a dog without X.

What I was saying is assume that however you did it, you have shown that all mammals have X. But for what ever reason (we don't know why), you cannot test X in dogs.

 

[MorkandMindy]

What I was saying is assume that however you did it, you have shown that all mammals have X. But for what ever reason (we don't know why), you cannot test X in dogs.

Using TomK80's improved definition you are saying property X is not testable, that is, not observable for some reason.


What you have here is an inheritance class, that since all mammals have a common ancestry all mammals would be expected to have property X.


But some might not.


The reason is the DNA might have mutated in the common ancestor of all dogs and so dogs might lack that property.


The claim that 'all mammals have X' can not be made unless it is actually shown all mammals have X. The correct statement would be that since all mammals have a common ancestry all mammals would be expected to have property X.

But I could be wrong because I know virtually no biology.

 

[Tomk80]

What I was saying is assume that however you did it, you have shown that all mammals have X. But for what ever reason (we don't know why), you cannot test X in dogs.

Well, if you can't test it, it's unfalsifiable. It may still be very likely to be true, as MorkandMindy explained.

This then goes in the direction of what can be considered "scientific". I don't think, but other may disagree with me on that, that falsifiability is the only thing that makes something science. It's an important marker of whether something is testable or not, but it isn't the sole arbitrator.

Suppose we have observed that all hereditary traits present in mammals are also present in dogs (since dogs are mammals). And suppose we have been able to test trait X in a large number of mammals, large enough to conclude that it is probably present in all mammals and thus in dogs. We could then conclude that X is very likely also present in dogs. If we are unable to test X directly, we would then proceed to try and test statements similar to "X is present in dogs, because it is present in all other mammals". An example might be to test whether there is a trait Y that is present in all mammals except dogs. If we find no other such trait Y, our conclusion for trait X is strengthened. If we find a trait Y that is present in all mammals, except dogs, the conclusion that X must be present may be weakened.

This way, by testing peripheral hypotheses, we might still be able to make some statement about the likelihood that our conclusion about trait X is correct, even though our hypothesis about trait X is still unfalsifiable.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Yes, this is a nit pick, but a fun one...

If some theory about the universe is true, then it should not be falsifiable (outside of bad science happening), thus it is not scientific.

Does a more rigorous definition fix this problem?

Also a bit of a different issue. If something is derived, need it be falsifiable to be scientific? For example... Lets say we know all dogs are mammals, we know all mammals have X (don't worry about how we know this), thus we know all dogs have X, but for what ever reason, if one were to try to form an hypothesis 'all dogs have X', it would be unfalsifiable. As long as the premises are scientific, does the deduction from them have to be falsifiable for it to be scientific?

As Tom said, falsifiability refers to testability. Bottom line, in order for a theory to be valid, it must present information which can be tested and, if incorrect or invalid, be proven wrong (or different from the theory).

In your example of all mammals having "x"... it IS falsifiable, you would simply have to find a mammal that didn't have "x". Either they have it, or they don't. Now, if they don't, the becomes "why not". In your example, perhaps other theories explain why the "x" may no longer occur or be present. Then it's a matter of testing THAT theory to see if it adequately explains the disappearance of "x" and accurately predicts the lack or presence of "x" in other mammals.

 

[Hespera]

Present company excepted of course but I sure wish that the 2nd law, THEORY of evolution, and falsifiability had never entered into the creo vocab. Or if they did, that they'd got all the way in, so that they actually knew what the words and the concepts behind them actually mean.

 

[Tomk80]

Present company excepted of course but I sure wish that the 2nd law, THEORY of evolution, and falsifiability had never entered into the creo vocab. Or if they did, that they'd got all the way in, so that they actually knew what the words and the concepts behind them actually mean.

I disagree, where would be the fun in that? If organizations like ICR and AiG couldn't mangle simple scientific concepts, they wouldn't have anything to write about.

 

[ragarth]

Yes, this is a nit pick, but a fun one...

If some theory about the universe is true, then it should not be falsifiable (outside of bad science happening), thus it is not scientific.

Does a more rigorous definition fix this problem?

As stated earlier, science is an attempt to describe reality, ergo scientific predictions are tested against the results of reality in experiments. The term falsifiable is a statement of potential- We don't know the result of experiment X until it is done, so until it's performed we do not know if hypothesis Y's prediction will actually come to fruition in experiment X. Therefore experiment Y is falsifiable because of the potential of experiment X to produce a different result. Let's take this to a logical extreme:

The theory of gravity predicts that a body of sufficient mass will attract smaller bodies towards it. Ergo, since the earth is a body of sufficient mass, if I drop a pencil, it should fall towards the earth. This is a testable prediction, and therefore the theory of gravity is falsifiable, even if I know that when I drop a pencil, it will fall towards the earth. (one can claim that I actually do not know this until it's done- this is where we get into a weird philosophy on empiricism.)

The term falsifiable is referring to the nebulous idea of something being testable in some odd philosophical sense rather than a description of reality. It's important to know that the origin of science arises from the philosophy of empiricism, ergo, when talking about the philosophy of science things get a bit weird- case in point, pure empiricism is not rationalism, in empiricism one cannot conclude absolutely that something is 100% repeatable. (If I dropped a pen 3 billion times, that is not an absolute guarantee that the 3billion and first time will succeed.) Ergo falsifiability is a property of a theory even if we've done every possible experiment on it we can think of right now, since those experiments are repeatable.

What this means is that science will never actually be 100% complete, even if we discover some grand universal equation that perfectly describes everything we know about the universe, and appears absolutely perfect, it will still have the possibility of being proven wrong by future experimentation- even though it looks absolutely perfect to us it may not be in the face of future information. Ergo, science is always open to the possibility of being wrong, and disproving a theory like gravity, evolution, or QM would make somebody crazy rich in grant money.

From here we can get into a philosophical discussion of a 'universal truth' that will never actually be known by us, but rather we will always only be guessing at it.

Also a bit of a different issue. If something is derived, need it be falsifiable to be scientific? For example... Lets say we know all dogs are mammals, we know all mammals have X (don't worry about how we know this), thus we know all dogs have X, but for what ever reason, if one were to try to form an hypothesis 'all dogs have X', it would be unfalsifiable. As long as the premises are scientific, does the deduction from them have to be falsifiable for it to be scientific?

(formal logic alert)

If X is to be known, X must be testable. If X is known to be in all mammals, then X is testable in all mammals. If X is testable in all mammals, and if dogs are mammals, then X is testable in dogs.

ergo If X is not testable in dogs, then X is not known to be in all mammals.

 

[Maxwell511]

As stated earlier, science is an attempt to describe reality, ergo scientific predictions are tested against the results of reality in experiments.

This is sort of a pet peeve for me and I know that it is a philosophical point but science is not an attempt to describe reality. It is an attempt to model it. We experience effects and then try to conceptualise causation, these concepts become valid if they have predictive value. Scientific concepts are not a description of reality but a rationalization of it.

 

[Nathan45]

Yes, this is a nit pick, but a fun one...

If some theory about the universe is true, then it should not be falsifiable (outside of bad science happening), thus it is not scientific.

Does a more rigorous definition fix this problem?

the problem is your understanding of what "falsifiable" means. When people say "falsifiable" what they really mean is testable in such a way that if the theory were false the test would indicate that through testing. If the theory passes all tests, it's still "falsifiable", it just wasn't falsified.

Just because something is "falsifiable" doesn't mean it isn't in practice impossible to falsify. So it's perfectly possible to have something that is in practice impossible to falsify because it's true, but it's still "falsifiable" because there is some way of testing it (even though it always passes the tests). Yeah that's confusing, but that's just word usage for you.

IOW, "falsifiability" means there has to be some way of testing the theory such that a result of the test would indicate that the theory is false. It doesn't mean the theory has to be false.

Also a bit of a different issue. If something is derived, need it be falsifiable to be scientific? For example... Lets say we know all dogs are mammals, we know all mammals have X (don't worry about how we know this), thus we know all dogs have X, but for what ever reason, if one were to try to form an hypothesis 'all dogs have X', it would be unfalsifiable.

No. the premise that "all dogs have X' is extremely falsifiable. Find a dog that doesn't have X, and it's falsified. If a dog can't be found, it's still "falsifiable" but it may be true. It may be impossible to find a dog that doesn't have x, because all dogs really do have x, but it's still "falsifiable" because there is a method of testing it: looking for dogs trying to find ones that don't have X.

I also take issue with the idea that you "know" that "all mammals have X". All you can say, is a mammal has never been discovered that wasn't X. (assuming X is not part of the definition of mammal). "All mammals have x" could be the working theory, but since that statement (and science in general) is inductive reasoning, you can never know anything with absolute certainty.

 

[tansy]

). "All mammals have x" could be the working theory, but since that statement (and science in general) is inductive reasoning, you can never know anything with absolute certainty.

I don't want to divert this thread, but quick question in view of the above statement - that presumably means that something like the Theory of Evolution is not known to be true with absolute certainty? Or would that mean that the MECHANICS of evolution are not known with absolute certainty? (I'm not turning this into a Cre v Ev debate..I just want to understand the principle of the above statement)

 

[Jester4kicks]

I don't want to divert this thread, but quick question in view of the above statement - that presumably means that something like the Theory of Evolution is not known to be true with absolute certainty? Or would that mean that the MECHANICS of evolution are not known with absolute certainty? (I'm not turning this into a Cre v Ev debate..I just want to understand the principle of the above statement)

Correct on both!

 

[tansy]

Correct on both!

thanks

 

[Nathan45]

I don't want to divert this thread, but quick question in view of the above statement - that presumably means that something like the Theory of Evolution is not known to be true with absolute certainty?

it's impossible to know anything about the external world with absolute certainty. Evolution is about as close to certain as it gets-- yet, for all i know, reality is just an elaborate dream and nothing i see is real. look up solipsism

Or would that mean that the MECHANICS of evolution are not known with absolute certainty? (I'm not turning this into a Cre v Ev debate..I just want to understand the principle of the above statement)

there's always some uncertainty, because science is based in part on inductive reasoning.

Logical systems have axioms which can be used for deductive reasoning.

however the only way to discover an axiom is through inductive reasoning, and inductive reasoning does not involve 100% certainty.

 

[tansy]

it's impossible to know anything about the external world with absolute certainty. Evolution is about as close to certain as it gets-- yet, for all i know, reality is just an elaborate dream and nothing i see is real. look up solipsism

there's always some uncertainty, because science is based in part on inductive reasoning.

Logical systems have axioms which can be used for deductive reasoning.

however the only way to discover an axiom is through inductive reasoning, and inductive reasoning does not involve 100% certainty.

That's very interesting - again, i dont want to divert the thread...but it seems to me that at least part of how people come to be Christians, is through inductive reasoning, but, at least some atheists ,seem to think we don't use any reasoning.

You see, to me, becoming a Christian, does have parallels to the scientific method (yes, granted, there are differences), but for us, in a sense, we do take a hypothesis, in effect, and test it out..and draw
conclusions from it.

My apologies for digressing from the OP, but it was just making me think.



,

 

[Nathan45]

That's very interesting - again, i dont want to divert the thread...but it seems to me that at least part of how people come to be Christians, is through inductive reasoning, but, at least some atheists ,seem to think we don't use any reasoning.
,

well, i could use this as an opportunity to divert back to the original thread...

for something to be scientific it has to be "falsifiable" or testable.

so, if you come to christianity through inductive reasoning, then you must be willing to test it in a way that could prove it false.



for example:
Let's say i leave an ice cube out in the sun, and it melts quickly.

I could conclude from this, inductively, that the sun causes the ice to melt.

However, would i be willing to test this? What if it was below freezing outside in the dead of winter, despite being a very sunny day... I could leave the ice out in the sun all day, and it would not melt. So my hypothesis would be disproven by my test.

If your faith is scientific, you must first clearly define what it is, and then you must devise a way to try to prove it false.

 

[tansy]

well, i could use this as an opportunity to divert back to the original thread...

for something to be scientific it has to be "falsifiable" or testable.

so, if you come to christianity through inductive reasoning, then you must be willing to test it in a way that could prove it false.



for example:
Let's say i leave an ice cube out in the sun, and it melts quickly.

I could conclude from this, inductively, that the sun causes the ice to melt.

However, would i be willing to test this? What if it was below freezing outside in the dead of winter, despite being a very sunny day... I could leave the ice out in the sun all day, and it would not melt. So my hypothesis would be disproven by my test.

If your faith is scientific, you must first clearly define what it is, and then you must devise a way to try to prove it false.

OK I see what you mean. Of course I did say that I thought it had SOME parallels, and certainly I don.t think it's testable in the strict scientific sense.
I suppose that I was basically thinking that, as one reads scripture and talks to people, and tries as far as one is able, to verify the truth of the Bible's claims ingeneral, but in particular the claims made about Jesus, one gets to a point where it seems very feasible and makes sense (even if there are still lots of questions). So, one could say, that one ends up with a hypothesis about Jesus (too late at night to go into details about that, and my husband keeps chatting to me). So then, basically one asks Jesus to come into one's life (maybe a bit more to it than that, but..). Now to me, this is falsifiable, if having prayed (call it the Sinners Prayer), nothing happens, there's no difference made to you in whatever way. Conversely, it would appear to be true, if certain things DO happen.

 

[Gracchus]

OK I see what you mean. Of course I did say that I thought it had SOME parallels, and certainly I don.t think it's testable in the strict scientific sense.

Quite right! After all, parallel lines have no points in common, although all contain an infinite number of points.

I suppose that I was basically thinking that, as one reads scripture and talks to people, and tries as far as one is able, to verify the truth of the Bible's claims ingeneral, but in particular the claims made about Jesus, one gets to a point where it seems very feasible and makes sense (even if there are still lots of questions).

I find that a lot of what Jesus said makes sense. A great deal of what has been said about him does not.

So, one could say, that one ends up with a hypothesis about Jesus (too late at night to go into details about that, and my husband keeps chatting to me). So then, basically one asks Jesus to come into one's life (maybe a bit more to it than that, but..). Now to me, this is falsifiable, if having prayed (call it the Sinners Prayer), nothing happens, there's no difference made to you in whatever way. Conversely, it would appear to be true, if certain things DO happen.

Your hypothesis is like the hypothesis that a forest fire roasts a deer. Certainly, that is one way, but you can roast venison without starting a forest fire.
Just so, one can change one's behavior without buying into theological nonsense. That, as I see it, is the good news that Jesus brought: You don't need temples, tithes, priests, prayers, rituals, dogma, doctrine and sacrifices.