"Evolution has never been falsified."
Yes! Precisely, because it cannot be. Thank you for proving my point.
Evolution cannot be a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be falsified. Falsifiability means in order for a hypothesis to be scientific there must be some test that could be made that will prove the hypothesis false, if it is false. There only must be such a possible test. It is not necessary that it be carried out for the hypothesis to be a valid scientific one. (Sometimes the test is not yet technologically possible without further development, for example.)
from here: http://theautonomist.com/aaphp/permanent/fallacies.php#falsff
In science, a proposed hypothesis is not considered valid if there is no experiment that can be performed that would, if the hypothesis is incorrect, fail. If such an experiment can be performed, and it "fails to fail," it is proof (or at least very good evidence) the hypothesis is correct.
No doubt the prejudice against this very useful objective method lies in the name, "falsifiability." It does not mean the scientist must attempt to prove a hypothesis false, but the very opposite. "Falsifiability," is the method by which a hypothesis may be proven true. It also does not mean that a hypothesis must be assumed correct until it is falsified.
The idea of falsifiability protects the field of science from being obliged to entertain as, "possible," any wild hypothesis on no other basis than it cannot be disproved. If a hypothesis is correct, there will always be a test or experiment that it would fail, if it is incorrect, which when performed proves the hypothesis correct by not failing (or incorrect by failing).
If no test can be devised for testing a hypothesis, it means the hypothesis has no consequence, that nothing happens or doesn't happen because of it and nothing depends on it being right. If this were not true, whatever depended on the hypothesis could be tested. There is absolutely no reason to entertain a notion that has neither purpose or consequence.
"But why not perform experiments to verify rather than falsify?" In fact, all experiments performed to test a hypothesis are attempts to verify it. If such a test could "pass" even if the hypothesis were incorrect, passing the test would prove nothing. Passing a test is only, "proof," if passing is only possible when the hypothesis is true, which means the test must fail (the hypothesis will be falsified) when the hypothesis is untrue. A test which cannot falsify a hypothesis, if it is incorrect, cannot prove it, if it is correct.
To say a hypothesis is not falsifiable means that it cannot be proved (or disproved), and, therefore, is unacceptable as a scientific theory.
It is very unfortunate that this concept is misunderstood by many who are otherwise quite rational and objective. The principle not only applies to science, but almost all complex or abstract concepts. The attempt to verify any conjecture by means of a method that cannot discriminate between those conjectures which are true and those which are false can never discover the truth. Only a method which distinctly demonstrates a conjecture is false, if it is, can verify those conjectures that are true.
The concept of falsifiability sweeps away mountains of irrational rubbish masquerading as science, philosophy, ideology, and religion. One question that must be asked about any doubtful proposition or conjecture is, "how can this be disproved if it is false?" If there is no way to test if the proposition is false, there are no rational grounds whatsoever for assuming the proposition to be true.
Hank
So close :-)
This fails to make the distinction between the humanities and the "hard sciences" -- there may be inherent limitiations in one's ability to *control* the conditions; or there may be classes of experience or phenomena (social interactions) which can be demonstrated, but not *conclusively* -- see also the legal phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt".
In other words, there may be things which are true, or false, but for which science is not a suitable instrument to discern the difference in practical use.
Cheers!
Cambrian rabbit? (or any mammal from the period)
No, I did not prove your point. I stated evolution has never been falsified, not that it could not be falsified. There are hundreds of tests that evolution has withstood. The pattern of the fossil record is one. It has a very distinct pattern based on age and geography. Or look at genetics. When that sciecne was developed, it confirmed much of the taxonomic relationships and refined others. And speciation has been observed to occur in modern times. The science is very well understood, tested and repeated.
Only someone who willfully choses ignorance would deny evolution.