Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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).... Look: The Popper's destructive ideology is incompatible with dogmatic knowledge, with Absolute Truth. Latter can not be refuted.
So why the God dmn Adolf Hitler is burning in hell? Nihilism is not true, because denies the Absolute Truth. No Truth is Lie.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);
Burden of Proof is Presumption of Non-existence? Like of God's?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.
No; there's a world of difference between lacking 100% certainty of truth and a lie.So why the God dmn Adolf Hitler is burning in hell? Nihilism is not true, because denies the Absolute Truth. No Truth is Lie.
The aim of test is not to disprove a scientific theory, but to confirm it.
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.
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''.
Read my wording: test is meant not to prove, but to confirm.
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?
IMO, those are two sides of the same coin.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?
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.
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.The Popper's scientific criterion "scientific theory is always refutable'', must be replaced by "scientific theory is always confirmable''. ...
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.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]
You are still misunderstanding what happens in science, joinfree.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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?