Posted on 04/06/2003 10:12:13 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
So you're the guy who keeps passing on those chain letters!
Popper and falsifiability say more than that. He demonstrates that empirical knowledge does not exist without falsifiability. That is pretty profound. What you were describing more accurately describes William of Ockham.
You said a boatload of falsehoods about the theory, but this one at least should be put to rest.
You're right that enough about the universe is not yet known to explain what the universe was like on a quantum scale. But from what is known, it appears that time, space, and matter are interdependent. The big bang theory is that EVERYTHING is finite, including time. That means that the universe ALWAYS existed. That is right, the universe is finite and has always existed. Our observations of time show us that this is not a contradiction.
So, the universe did not arise from "nothing" (whatever that means). Furthermore, there's no need to suppose any kind of discontinuity in time. Time during the early stages of the big bang might, for instance, have been extremely dilated compared to time to you and me. Perhaps approaching infinity, resulting in an asymptote.
This is speculation, as the nature of time at that level has yet to be discerned, but it does show that what some people think is a disproof of the theory is really a function of a misunderstanding of general relativity and a limiting of imagination.
Many scientific 'singularities' are universally accepted by scientists even though, by defintion, such singularities are not repeatable and observable.
First, many scientist bath regularly, but I don't think just because scientists do it, it makes bathing science, so just because many scientists accept something, it does not make that thing science.
Singulars in themselves are of no particular import to science. Just observing there is a particular singularity is not science. Until an attempt is made to say something about a singularity (either an entity or event), define what it is, how it came to be, what it's function is, how it relates to other things, and so on, it is not a matter of science at all.
It is when science attempts to say something about a singularity that it becomes a matter of science, and then, whatever it says must either be testable, or is just so much blather.
Now, just for the record, a lot of things are called science, which are really technology. Computer science is an example. In general, when principles of science already established are applied, in research, to discover particular facts (as in forensics) or to create something new, the activity, while scientific in style and methods, is not really science, but technology. Interestingly, technology is often the ultimate proof of scinece (e.g. heavier than air flight, anesthesia, wirelss radio, landing on the moon.) These are often called "scientific achievements," but what science, "achieves," is the discovery of those principles which make technological achievements, like those I listed, possible.
(Note: in my original post, "practical" does not mean, useful, it means useable, in the sense that it really explains something that can be applied in some general way, even if that application only gives wider understanding of something else. Ultimately, though, a hyposthesis that has no consequence, one way or the other, is pointless, and if it does have some consequence, we can check to see if it is what we expect it to be. The consequences to not have to be material consequences, they may only be conceptual, as in mathematics.)
Hank
Me too!
Hank
Sure, but I posited what was important about what he said.
He demonstrates that empirical knowledge does not exist without falsifiability. That is pretty profound. What you were describing more accurately describes William of Ockham.
No, it doesn't. Unlike Popper's Dictum, Ockham's razor is neither compelling nor profound, and slices orthogonally to Popper's reaper. Popper does not claim empirical knowledge as the exclusive domain of falsifiability. Just of scientific knowledge, where the chips on the table represent real money.
Plenty of knowledge is empirical, just not scientifically reliable. My knowledge of the utility of phrenology, of the utility of pliers for plucking nose hairs, of the results of letting black cats run under ladders, or that frogs cause warts. They are empirical because I tested them, and they worked for me. Some of these things I believe for empirical reasons may be scientifically reliable, but the test has not been put to them. Some of them may be reduced to their Ockham-optimum (I may believe in a minimal reduced set of astrologal signs, for example)--it has no effect on their scientific reliability.
Lots of physics is applied. That doesn't demote physics to auto mechanics. There is, in fact, some actual science done under the banner of computer science.
Mebbe so, but he is still the whacko who first formalized the grammar zoo, and his heirarchy is still the deciderata of tokenizer, assembler, compiler, and natural language translation programmers.
Some whackos are more valuable than others.
I didn't say anything about this, but now that you bring it up, I disagree.
My knowledge of the utility of phrenology, of the utility of pliers for plucking nose hairs, of the results of letting black cats run under ladders, or that frogs cause warts. They are empirical because I tested them, and they worked for me. Some of these things I believe for empirical reasons may be scientifically reliable, but the test has not been put to them.
You're avoiding the whole context of falsifiability. Falsifiability applies to explanations of phenomena as candidates for knowledge. If the explanation is not falsifiable then the explanation doesn't explain anything. You may have a theory of phrenology that may be a valid theory (in this sense) provided it is falsifiable. If your theory of phrenology is not falsifiable then it can't possibly say anything new about the world.
Also, falsifiability doesn't require that any "test" (as you say) be done. It only requires the possibility of a test whose outcome is not necessarily positive.
I looked for the forensic science office in the physics department, and I couldn't find it. Parse all you like, it is still the case that when you aren't trying to figure out how to repeat experiments critically, you are doing the chicken fluff part of science that it shares with philosophy, religion, late night college bull sessions, and opium fevers. When you are doing serious science--as we understand it at the tag end of the 20th century--you are figuring out how do critical experiments.
I humbly disagree. Until you are doing critical experiments you are doing philosophy, or, more likely, just noodling around. I can conceive of a test by exhaustion to disprove God's existent as a motive power in the universe. But I can't ever afford to run the test. You would suggest I just performed a piece of science. I would suggest I merely farted in the God's general direction.
Science wants to get on with it's work. Suggestions about tests we can't possibly run, say, within the normal lifespan of a culture, are not to the point.
I didn't say anything about this, but now that you bring it up, I disagree.
Disagree all you like, there is no scientific underpinning to the notion that I must prefer the answer with the simplest venn diagram. It's just an occasionally useful guideline--not a hard and fast law. Does QED, for example, strike you as a slimmer, more steamlined model of the sub-nuke world? Does Ockham's razor give you any insight whatsoever into which of the 7 common interpretations of quantum theory should be scientifically preferred?
Ockham's razor is fun to bring out in bull sessions, and it sounds plausable, but it is not a compelling scientific dictum. No scientific historical analysis supports it's thesis--we could just as easily be led astray, as to the truth by it--given the data we currently have about it.
We do know that humans prefer easy answers over hard answers--doesn't fill me with confidence, personally.
Yes and no. This only really applies to strict axiomatic systems. Systems that rely on non-axiomatic computation/cognition really don't require strict falsifiability as a condition for "correctness" of an explanation. Not to get off on a tangent to much here, but I would point out that non-axiomatic systems are much "smarter" on a given finite system than axiomatic systems in general, but at a cost that sometimes the system may deem non-falsifiable assertions as explanatory. Since we don't have infinite computers (a la Turing), it is hard to realize the relative perfection of an axiomatic system for explanatory purposes.
I don't disagree with you in principle, but I wanted to point out that what you wrote does not necessarily have universal application for real systems. Or at least the universal application would generate inferior results in some types of real and practical systems.
Sure it does--just not to the reliability that would qualify it as a scientific notion.
To pull out an old chestnut: Does my father's love for me explain anything about my behavior? Sure it does. Is my father's love for me a scientific dictum? If so, I sure missed the journal publications.
Occasionally, I am forced by circumstances beyond my control to do actual work for a living. Going to conferences, Holding meetings, submitting design documents, and writing reports only staves that off, eventually the work has to actually be done.
Now, there's something we agree on.
Singulars [sic--singularity] in themselves are of no particular import to science.
Now That's an odd statement, concerning that the ultimate question of all science--the focus of the majority of scientific research--concerns a singularity.
...Until an attempt is made to say something about a singularity (either an entity or event), define what it is, how it came to be, what it's function is, how it relates to other things, and so on...
Sounds close enough to a definition of forensic science to me.
...it is not a matter of science at all.
How do you specifically define "science"?
It is when science attempts to say something about a singularity that it becomes a matter of science, and then, whatever it says must either be testable
How do you test a singularity? By repeating the event (operation science)? But then we would not be speaking of a singularity at all if, in fact, it could be repeated.
Additionally, if we recreated an event similar to the singularity event, then we still would not be testing the singularity itself.
Now, just for the record, a lot of things are called science, which are really technology. Computer science is an example. In general, when principles of science already established are applied, in research, to discover particular facts (as in forensics) or to create something new, the activity, while scientific in style and methods, is not really science, but technology. Interestingly, technology is often the ultimate proof of scinece (e.g. heavier than air flight, anesthesia, wirelss radio, landing on the moon.) These are often called "scientific achievements," but what science, "achieves," is the discovery of those principles which make technological achievements, like those I listed, possible.
Again, which definition of science are you using?
P.S.
You cannot do science at all ("critical experiments") without doing the critical thinking, which is to say, doing philosophy.
P.S.S.
Surely you are not denying a definition of science known as forensic science, are you?
How do you test a singularity?
I never said you test a singularity. It is what you say about a singularity you test. If you cannot test whether what you say about singularity is true or not, there really is not point in saying it.
Again, which definition of science are you using?
The one linked to in the article is fine with me.
Hank
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.