Science is in crisis. The Popper was wrong?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... Look: The Popper's destructive ideology is incompatible with dogmatic knowledge, with Absolute Truth. Latter can not be refuted.

As Kant, Popper, and others have explained, there is no absolute truth with regards to states of affairs in the world (i.e. synthetic propositions); it only applies to analytic propositions (e.g. mathematics, logic), where truths are true by definition (i.e. tautologically).

If it's any comfort, we can't be sure of Popperian falsifications due to methodological uncertainties, etc.

 

[joinfree]

As Kant, Popper, and others have explained, there is no absolute truth with regards to states of affairs in the world (i.e. synthetic propositions);

So why the God dmn Adolf Hitler is burning in hell? Nihilism is not true, because denies the Absolute Truth. No Truth is Lie.

 

[joinfree]

ok, that's fun.

But the value (off the top of my head at the moment) in Karl Popper's criterion is that if we entertain theories (as equally worth considering) which can never be tested -- theories which could never be falsified -- there will be no way to choose among competing such theories, as they proliferate, about some one area of science. You can end up with many theories that contradict each other in significant ways, and no way to ever choose among them or know if any have any value.

Saying you seek to prove a theory is only another version of Popper's criterion I expect, in that you are probably just saying you want to be able to test the theory, and find it survives -- passes various tests. So, you'd then only have another wording for the same thing Popper is saying we should use. You'd just be re-wording Popper's point in new wording.

But then there is one more aspect to consider -- passing a lot of tests doesn't ultimately prove a theory is more than only an approximation.

Example: Newton's law of gravity: passes a lot of tests, for centuries, and seems proven.

Until....until we get to situations fine enough to discover it's only an approximation, corrected by Einstein's General Relativity.

Burden of Proof is Presumption of Non-existence? Like of God's?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So why the God dmn Adolf Hitler is burning in hell? Nihilism is not true, because denies the Absolute Truth. No Truth is Lie.

No; there's a world of difference between lacking 100% certainty of truth and a lie.

In other words, not being 100% certain of the truth of something doesn't mean it's definitely false.

Obviously.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The aim of test is not to disprove a scientific theory, but to confirm it.

Not really.
When you design experiments, you try to falsify your hypothesis.

Failing to falsify your hypothesis, gives your hypothesis a LOT more credibility then merely seeking to gather data that fits the hypothesis.

The strength of a theory is found in not being able to show it wrong.

If you have a theory that says that "X will result in Y" and you go to hell and back trying to make X result in anything but Y....and you fail consistently, then each of those failures becomes a confirmation of the theory.

As opposed to what you are saying, it seems: designing your experiments in such a way that X in fact will result into Y. You'ld just be missing all the potential circumstances where it might result in something else...

If sadly happens, that theory becomes disproven, then the theory is not scientific anymore. Otherwise, the vector is directed towards idiocy, not evolution: scientists are called to lie, for Science to be refutable. If someone refutes the Scientific Theory, then latter is not Scientific anymore, and not confirmable. But it stays forever refutable, if once is refuted.

The Flat Earth is refuted, so Flat Earth is scientific, because is forever refutable.​

You're not making any sense here.
It sounds as if you don't know what is actually meant by "refutable" and how it differs from "refuted".

CONCLUSION:
The Popper's criterion "any scientific theory is disprovable'' is replaced in Q-Science [MY PROJECT] with the vector of progress: "any scientific theory is provable''.

I reached a different conclusion: you don't actually understand what Popper is talking about....

 

[DogmaHunter]

Read my wording: test is meant not to prove, but to confirm.

Either way, you are wrong.

You want to look for circumstances where the theory does NOT work.
Failing to do that, will accomplish a lot more then merely designing experiments to simply confirm the idea.

Newton is indeed a great example.
You can design uncountable amount of experiments geared specifically towards confirming Newtonian gravity. But you'll only be missing the fact that it doesn't account for relativistic effects.

So you'll end up thinking Newtonian Gravity is the only game in town. While it actually isn't.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I personally think that the falsification criterion of Popper is over-emphasized, and that in practice, the 'attempt to falsify' is de facto performed when 'doing the opposite' - when you test your hypothesis, you can falsify or support it depending on the outcome, regardless of what you set out to do.

For example, you do like this:

'I have hypothesis X. I must now seek to falsify it. If I do not falsify it, then it is tentatively supported.'

or you could do this:

'I have hypothesis X. I will now seek to support it. if I cannot support it, then it if falsified.'

The end result is the same.

True.
But wouldn't you agree that if you design your experiments in such a way that you set them up to confirm your idea, you might simply be missing the fact that it wouldn't work in different circumstances?

Isn't it true that continued failure of actively trying to disprove an idea, gives more credibility to that idea as opposed to continued succes in finding things consistent with the idea?

 

[tas8831]

True.
But wouldn't you agree that if you design your experiments in such a way that you set them up to confirm your idea, you might simply be missing the fact that it wouldn't work in different circumstances?

Certainly. I suppose I 'have it easy' in that in my work, hypotheses are fairly cut and dried - either the data support your hypothesis, or it doesn't, very little room for nuance (sequence analysis)

Isn't it true that continued failure of actively trying to disprove an idea, gives more credibility to that idea as opposed to continued succes in finding things consistent with the idea?

IMO, those are two sides of the same coin.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Certainly. I suppose I 'have it easy' in that in my work, hypotheses are fairly cut and dried - either the data support your hypothesis, or it doesn't, very little room for nuance (sequence analysis)


IMO, those are two sides of the same coin.

Kind of a "glass half full or half empty" kind of thing then. Either it supports the idea or it doesn't.

Still, I'ld say that when designing experiments, the impact of the result on the hypothesis being tested, would be directly proportional to the ground design of the experiment.

I'ld say / expect that as an experiment designer, you'ld want to try and go for those "thin ice" zones at least. Those area's where you at least suspect that the results might not actually agree with the idea being tested.

Otherwise, it seems to me, you are just working towards trying to uphold the status quo.
There wouldn't be much point in such experiments imo.

I don't think that you don't agree with this.
But I have the feeling that in this thread, the OP seems to be suggesting that we should actively only try to confirm ideas. It's almost like saying that we should try to provide the answers before actually asking the questions. To design experiments of which we already know before hand what the outcome will be.

It's very easy to design experiments that agree with Newtonian Gravity. We simply ignore all the stuff that would require "Einsteinian" gravity... It's only when we include those into the experiment, that we see that Newtonian gravity falls short.

 

[RealityCheck01]

The Popper's scientific criterion "scientific theory is always refutable'', must be replaced by "scientific theory is always confirmable''. ...

The title is a partial lie. Science not in crisis. There are unsolved problems. We are always fine-tuning the scientific method. That is not a crisis in science.

That is not "Popper's scientific criterion", joinfree. That is a part of his scientific criteria (plural) - Falsifiability

The concept was introduced by the philosopher of science Karl Popper. He saw falsifiability as the logical part and the cornerstone of his scientific epistemology, which sets the limits of scientific inquiry. He proposed that statements and theories that are not falsifiable are unscientific. Declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientific would then be pseudoscience.[5]

The scientific method is already always confirmable! If there is no evidence for something then there is not even a scientific hypothesis. A basic part of science is confirming previous results.

We must not replace the scientific method which has been working for centuries and arguably produced our modern world.

 

[RealityCheck01]

The aim of test is not to disprove a scientific theory, but to confirm it.

You are still misunderstanding what happens in science, joinfree.
The aim of scientific tests is to confirm or "disprove" (there is no proof in science) a scientific theory.

Take Hubble's law for example. This is a test that in 1927 (Lemaitre) and 1929 (Hubble) showed that galaxies act to confirm what general relativity predicts for an expanding universe. This test was repeated many times with more and better data and confirmed general relativity. Astronomers in 1998 showed that Hubble's law was broken! But that did not "disprove" general relativity. It showed that a part of GR was not being applied. There was an assumption that the cosmological constant was zero. The 1998 evidence showed that assumption was wrong.

 

[jamesbond007]

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are still misunderstanding what happens in science, joinfree.
The aim of scientific tests is to confirm or "disprove" (there is no proof in science) a scientific theory.

Take Hubble's law for example. This is a test that in 1927 (Lemaitre) and 1929 (Hubble) showed that galaxies act to confirm what general relativity predicts for an expanding universe. This test was repeated many times with more and better data and confirmed general relativity. Astronomers in 1998 showed that Hubble's law was broken! But that did not "disprove" general relativity. It showed that a part of GR was not being applied. There was an assumption that the cosmological constant was zero. The 1998 evidence showed that assumption was wrong.

An interesting note, and an example of how Wikipedia is a better source than most people realize:

Earlier today @Michie started this thread: Astronomers vote to rename Hubble law to recognize Fr.George Lamaitre... Where he told us that astronomers had just voted yesterday to rename Hubble's Law to the Hubble-Lemaitre Law. The Wikipedia link that you provide has already been updated to include that as an alternate name of it:

"Hubble's law (also known as the Hubble–Lemaître law)[1] is the name for the observation in physical cosmology that:"

Wikipedia is updated constantly and those updates are usually scrutinized. I had a debate with someone that once claimed anyone could update Wikipedia and to "prove" it he updated an article. The problem was that there was nothing wrong with his update. It was factually correct. Even though he was putting down Wikipedia he did not want to risk his membership by putting in a false update. To troll Wikipedia these days takes a little bit of effort and the short time that a trolled alteration lasts is far too short for most to jump through the preliminary qualifications one must go through first.

 

[DogmaHunter]

An interesting note, and an example of how Wikipedia is a better source than most people realize:

Earlier today @Michie started this thread: Astronomers vote to rename Hubble law to recognize Fr.George Lamaitre... Where he told us that astronomers had just voted yesterday to rename Hubble's Law to the Hubble-Lemaitre Law. The Wikipedia link that you provide has already been updated to include that as an alternate name of it:

"Hubble's law (also known as the Hubble–Lemaître law)[1] is the name for the observation in physical cosmology that:"

Wikipedia is updated constantly and those updates are usually scrutinized. I had a debate with someone that once claimed anyone could update Wikipedia and to "prove" it he updated an article. The problem was that there was nothing wrong with his update. It was factually correct. Even though he was putting down Wikipedia he did not want to risk his membership by putting in a false update. To troll Wikipedia these days takes a little bit of effort and the short time that a trolled alteration lasts is far too short for most to jump through the preliminary qualifications one must go through first.

I already knew that wikipedia is an awesome resource and generally pretty reliable.
But I must say, this example right here, is quite impressive actually.

The information thus got updated within 24 hours after the vote.
That's huge.

Imagine how much more time it will take before the "new" name shows up in school textbooks........

Very impressive. And a reminder that that donation to wikipedia, really isn't a waste of money, but rather worth every penny.