The Logical Premise?

[Resha Caner]

It is often discussed here that science cannot prove a theory, but rather a theory remains in place until such time as it is falsified.

However, I am curious how many know the logical premise(s) explaining why that is the case.

 

[Loudmouth]

It is often discussed here that science cannot prove a theory, but rather a theory remains in place until such time as it is falsified.

However, I am curious how many know the logical premise(s) explaining why that is the case.

Since we don't have all of the data from the entire universe and through all of time it is impossible to determine if a claim is absolutely true. However, we can determine if something is false even with the evidence that we are limited to. All we need to do is find enough data that contradicts a theory to show that it is false.

"My proposal is based upon an asymmetry between verifiability and falsifiability; an asymmetry which results from the logical form of universal statements. For these are never derivable from singular statements, but can be contradicted by singular statements."

— Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is often discussed here that science cannot prove a theory, but rather a theory remains in place until such time as it is falsified.

However, I am curious how many know the logical premise(s) explaining why that is the case.

Because it works.

 

[AirPo]

It is often discussed here that science cannot prove a theory, but rather a theory remains in place until such time as it is falsified.

However, I am curious how many know the logical premise(s) explaining why that is the case.

In order to prove a theory, we'd have to test everything. We can't test everything, therefore cannot prove it.

 

[Resha Caner]

Popper is a good one to quote, and all the replies captured the essence of the argument, but in a qualitative manner. I was looking for something more formal.

For example, step 1 would be one of the most fundamental laws of logic - the law of non-contradiction: two contradictory statements cannot both be true.

 

[Loudmouth]

Popper is a good one to quote, and all the replies captured the essence of the argument, but in a qualitative manner. I was looking for something more formal.

For example, step 1 would be one of the most fundamental laws of logic - the law of non-contradiction: two contradictory statements cannot both be true.

The trick is in determining if they are contradictory. For example, at one point in history you could have argued that "a photon is a particle" and "a photon is a wave" are contradictory statements. Turns out, they aren't. A photon can be a particle or a wave.

 

[Resha Caner]

The trick is in determining if they are contradictory. For example, at one point in history you could have argued that "a photon is a particle" and "a photon is a wave" are contradictory statements. Turns out, they aren't. A photon can be a particle or a wave.

Indeed that is tricky, but I guess I would consider that more a procedural/definitional issue than a logical issue.

As a next step, science can be thought of as consisting of three parts: the cause, the effect, and the rule that connects those two. Given the idea that if one knows 2 of those, the third can be inferred, there are 3 arrangements of cause, effect, and rule:
1. Deduction: Cause and the rule are known, and effect is inferred
2. Induction: Cause and effect are known, and the rule is inferred
3. Abduction: Effect and the rule are known, and the cause is inferred

 

[Chesterton]

Theology is the actual "Queen of the Sciences". Nothing can possibly make sense or be true without it.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Theology is the actual "Queen of the Sciences". Nothing can possibly make sense or be true without it.

Why is that?

 

[Chesterton]

Why is that?

When I was a schoolkid there was this math teacher, or someone posing as a math teacher (how could it be proven?), who teached me that there are such things as axioms; things that can't be proved but which are simply accepted as true by the human mind. It begged the question "What's so special about the human mind? Who made it judge, jury and executioner of the cosmos?" Theology answers the begged question. If you leave theology out of it, the question remains unanswered, and additionally, the question makes no sense, and even the asking of the question makes no sense.

 

[Resha Caner]

Theology is the actual "Queen of the Sciences". Nothing can possibly make sense or be true without it.

True in the sense that nothing can be known absolutely unless it is revealed by an omniscient source. However, I'm quite sure our non-believing friends have accommodated themselves to the idea that nothing will ever be known absolutely.

Maybe few have looked at this in detail, and maybe there's not much to discuss. I'll just press on and finish the argument in brief, and then people can discuss it as they see fit.

Of the three types of inference, only one (deduction) is "truth preserving". That is, if a cause is known to be true and a rule is known to be true, the consequent effect is also known to be true. "Known to be true" is a loaded phrase that can be compromised by the procedural difficulties @Loudmouth mentioned, but in terms of abstract logic, it holds. Such does not hold for the other 2. An effect and a rule can be known, but it is always possible that other rules will produce the same effect, and hence multiples causes are possible. A cause and effect can be known, and yet multiple possible rules proposed.

It is this last one (induction) that poses the problem for science. Science searches for rules to explain cause and effect, which means it uses induction. Induction, however, is not truth preserving. Science, must, therefore, rely on pragmatic means (levels of confidence) rather than deterministic rules of logic to arrive at a theory as best it can. On the flip side, though, a falsification test is deductive. Using a rule, the effect is predicted for a known cause. Therefore, while a theory can't be proved, a falsification test can conclusively disprove it. The best the remaining theories can claim, then, is that no falsification test has yet been found.

This was further elaborated by Godel with his incompleteness theorem. Some will argue the theorem can only be applied narrowly to mathematics, but given the prevalence of mathematics in science, it essentially applies to all quantitative science (with qualitative science being the much weaker brother). Godel's theorem shows that no axiomatic system can be made complete, and further that no defined system can prove its consistency from within that system.

That is the longer, unpacked version of Loudmouth's quote from Popper.

 

[Obliquinaut]

True in the sense that nothing can be known absolutely unless it is revealed by an omniscient source. However, I'm quite sure our non-believing friends have accommodated themselves to the idea that nothing will ever be known absolutely.

But those who are "believers" cannot claim any superior knowledge. Well, they can claim it, but they don't necessarily have it. Theology is a discussion of the "possible" without recourse to any way of "testing it".

There are hundreds if not thousands of "conceptions" of what God is like...or Gods.

 

[Resha Caner]

But those who are "believers" cannot claim any superior knowledge. Well, they can claim it, but they don't necessarily have it. Theology is a discussion of the "possible" without recourse to any way of "testing it".

I would state it differently. As I said, truth in theology comes from revelation. So it's not a discussion of the possible, but of what has been revealed. As such, the problem is not so much that the knowledge can't be tested, but rather than it can't be transferred. So, you were basically right in saying believers don't "have" the knowledge. They don't own the knowledge, but rather trust the source that told it to them.

In that sense, I don't see much difference between theological knowledge and much of the rest of knowledge people adhere to. The difference is a matter of degree rather than kind.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is often discussed here that science cannot prove a theory, but rather a theory remains in place until such time as it is falsified.

However, I am curious how many know the logical premise(s) explaining why that is the case.

It's because science is myopic.

 

[Obliquinaut]

I would state it differently. As I said, truth in theology comes from revelation. So it's not a discussion of the possible, but of what has been revealed.

And how does one differentiate "revelation" from one's imagination or hallucination?

There are many people who claim revealed knowledge, most of which I doubt you would accept simply for the claim of revelation. How does one verify revealed knowledge?

In that sense, I don't see much difference between theological knowledge and much of the rest of knowledge people adhere to. The difference is a matter of degree rather than kind.

Except scientific knowledge or empirical knowledge can be tested. Everyone will experience gravity the same way. Clearly not everyone experiences God the same way. Arguably God is limited only by the believers' imagination.

 

[Obliquinaut]

It's because science is myopic.

No, science is honest about itself. It accepts that we are all limited humans and cannot know all things.

We leave it to religious people to tell us all the things that they know with perfect knowledge.

And then we find another religious person who tells us a completely contradictory truth they know with perfect knowledge.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, science is honest about itself.

What does honesty have to do with myopia?

It accepts that we are all limited humans and cannot know all things.

In other words, it is myopic.

It is either blind, myopic, or omniscient ... which is it?

 

[Resha Caner]

And how does one differentiate "revelation" from one's imagination or hallucination?

The same way one knows that any perception is not imagination. When I read the Bible it's not hard to know that I'm not hallucinating just as I know that when I read your post. Do you think you're hallucinating when you read the Bible?

There are many people who claim revealed knowledge, most of which I doubt you would accept simply for the claim of revelation. How does one verify revealed knowledge?

One doesn't "verify" it in the sense you're thinking of. I either trust or distrust their words. If someone says they met and had a conversation with Jennifer Lawrence, I might not believe them if they claimed it happened in Gary, Indiana and JLaw was in LA that day. I'd be more likely to believe it if they showed me a picture of them with her. Even then I don't expect they can transfer that experience to me such that I can also experience a conversation with JLaw via their experience. It's not like gravity where I can explain to someone an experience that they can duplicate.

As such, I'm not expecting you to "verify" or believe my experiences. Either you trust my words or you don't. At this point I'm sure you don't.

Except scientific knowledge or empirical knowledge can be tested. Everyone will experience gravity the same way.

Experiencing gravity is not a scientific test of gravity. Few have tested gravity to any degree beyond what Galileo did. As such (unless you're a physicist who works on such things) I doubt you have any personal confirmation of gravity beyond Galileo's simple W = mg formulation. Few have actually taken observations of planetary motions and analyzed the data to confirm Newton's more accurate formulation. They simply trust that somebody did it. Even fewer have taken observations on Mercury's precession to confirm Einstein's even more accurate formulation. They simply trust that somebody did it.

Clearly not everyone experiences God the same way.

Clearly.

Arguably God is limited only by the believers' imagination.

That's an unfounded leap. Clearly everyone who has viewed a Jennifer Lawrence film experienced it in a different way, but that in no way justifies claiming she doesn't exist.

And no, I don't discount the spiritual experiences of others the way you do. I have no doubt many non-Christians have had spiritual experiences. What I dispute is their conclusions.

But I don't see how any of this relates to the OP.

 

[essentialsaltes]

"induction is the glory of science and the scandal of philosophy."

 

[AirPo]

What does honesty have to do with myopia?

In other words, it is myopic.

It is either blind, myopic, or omniscient ... which is it?

Smart enough to not fall for simpleton tricks such as this post.