Posted on 04/06/2003 10:12:13 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
Lately we have seen the notion of falsifiability represented as a fallacy. This is itself, a fallacy.
The concept of falsifiability is a greatly misunderstood but legitimate part of the scientific method (a rigorous application of reason to evidence). Consider this statement made as an objection to falsifiability, "Falsifiability can be a valuable intellectual tool: it can help you to disprove ideas which are incorrect. But it does not enable you to prove ideas which are correct." In fact, that is exactly what "falsifiability" does do, and without it, no scientific hypothesis can be proven.
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at hpamerica.com ...
The reason I posted this one is because I have seen this concept criticized on FR. It seems very important to me.
I think this principle ought to be applied to many concepts we hold. I would be interested in anyone's thought about applying the falsifiatility concept to things like social policy, or religion.
(If you want on or off this list please freepmail me.)
(Note, the article itself is long, but has lots of ideas that could be discussed. Please mention any other fallacies you think are interesting. Do you know any that are not indluded in the article?)
Hank
Your interest indicates that you have considered this application. So, I'll bite. How would you apply this concept to, say, religion? (and, of course, I had to pick a non controversial subject like religion to keep the discussion on an objective and dispassionate level).
[This ping list is for the evolution -- not creationism -- side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. To be added (or dropped), let me know via freepmail.]
God, how I hated Philosophy classes in college- and I have have seen nothing to change my mind since. It's all a big late-night dorm bull session.
I believe most religions are fundamentally unfalsifiable - that there is no evidence that anyone would accept that their religion is false.
Two points:
1) To speak of "the scientific method" (as the article does) is misleading and incorrect. There is not only one scientific method.
2) The above sentence begs the question, and is false. There are scientific truths that cannot necessarily be falsified.
Now, it is one thing to say such-and-such is not falsifiable (but may be proven true), and another thing to say there is no evidence to believe such-and such.
Two points:
1) To speak of "the scientific method" (as the article does) is misleading and incorrect. There is not only one scientific method.
2) The above sentence begs the question, and is false. There are scientific truths that cannot necessarily be falsified.
Now, it is one thing to say such-and-such is not falsifiable (but may be proven true), and another thing to say there is no evidence to believe such-and such.
Here are two possibilities:
Consider those things which can only be known by actually being seen, such as the effects of color on one's mood or feelings or the atmosphere set in a scene by the interplay of light and shadow. A blind person can know nothing of these except by the testimony of those who can see. Is the testimony of the seeing valid evidence to be accepted by the blind? Can that testimony, if it is false, be falsified by the blind?
If I were a very cleverly designed machine, I might claim I could see, and because of the very clever sensors in my system, be able to behave just as if I could see. But seeing, itself (the actual colors and shapes of my visual field) is subjective. You, nor anyone else can "see my seeing," so when I say I can see, you take my word for it, and assume it means the same as you mean when you say you can see. But, I cannot prove I actually see, because, there is no test that can be made which I would fail only if I could not see, but would surely pass if I can see. (This assumes all external behaviors associated with seeing exist, because it is only the subjective experience we are attempting to test for.)
Religion, I think, involves things which can be known rationallly enough (like the totally reasonable and rational belief of the blind in things they can only know by the testimony and explanation of the seeing), but that cannot always be objectively demonstrated (like all subjective experience). I do not believe there must be a conflict in this kind of knowledge and any other kind of rational knowledge.
On the other hand, I believe 99% of those things the religious believe are mostly irrational and easily disproved. Holding those kinds of religious views is rightly called superstition.
Hank
You eaither misunderstand what falsifiable means, or you intended something else for the above. If a truth were falsified, it would not be true. I assume you meant, there are scientific truths that cannot necessarily be tested, which necessarily means, tested in a way that means something. If a test can pass, whether what is being tested is true or not, the test proves nothing. The test only proves something, if it can only be passed if the hyposthesis is true, and must fail (be falsified) if it is not true.
If there are sceintific truths which are "untestable," could you please name one.
Hank
put me on the list, please.
The article doesn't, a reference does.
Are you implying that the methods of science are other than objective?
The above sentence begs the question, and is false. There are scientific truths that cannot necessarily be falsified.
By the above sentence we presume you mean, "To say a hypothesis is not falsifiable means that it cannot be proved (or disproved), and, therefore, is unacceptable as a scientific theory."
But, it is only one sentence in the section, and it can only "beg the question," if you take it out of the context that answered the question. Which you have done.
Do you disagree that, "If 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." If you agree with that, how could it be possible for any hypothesis to be proven (tested true) if there is not single test possible test it must fail, if it is untrue?
I do not think you understand the principle.
Hank
It does. It is justice.
Hank
In many fields of study, the items being studied do not behave entirely predictably. Suppose one is testing a drug and feeds it to six animals in a test group but not to six animals in a control group. Even if all six animals in the control group outlast all six animals in the test group that does not prove the drug was harmful. It suggests that it's likely, since, absent outside influences, such an event should happen only once every 924 such trials, but it would nonetheless suggest that there is probably a causal relationship.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.