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 ...
Who does the individual blame -- hold accountable -- for their own screw ups? The individual holds himself or herself responsible/accountable because only they as the highest authority can chose to be rational and hold themselves accountable. Even the seeming opposite wherein a person is irrational and claims some higher authority -- perhaps a God -- is responsible/accountable for their screw ups is acting on their own highest authority to make that choice. The individual is the highest authority.
The individual is accountable for his or her own actions and that correctly identifies the individual as the highest authority in their own life. What's the alternative? ...The complete contradiction that there exists a higher authority that's responsible/accountable for an individual's actions. Still, to make that contradictory claim it can only be asserted by the highest authority--the individual.
If the individual is not the highest authority the individual would not be able to choose either: 1, rationally account for their own screw up; or 2, irrationally hold another person or thing accountable for their screw up.
There is nothing wrong with making decisions based on less than perfect knowledge, when that is the best you can get. The point of "proof" and "testability" is to get knowledge that is better. "Suggestions," and, "probability," are not proof. They may be evidence that eventually leads to proof, but in the meantime, they are just suggestions and probabilities, at best, hypotheses, not scientific truth or theories.
Hank
I'm trying my hardest!
This assertion implies that faith-based religion is irrational. Perhaps better said that faith-based religion can not be proved or disproved by the scientific methods (of course not, then the religion could have a foundation other than faith).
By stating that you 'beleieve' you are implying that you do not 'know'. In short, you are using an opinion in an argument that began with logic. By using an opinion without the total logical analysis of the facts that you considered in forming this opinion, you have removed the argument from science and logic and into the realm of fictional speculation. While speculation is a valid human persuit (same as science or logic or love) it cannot be intermixed with logic to form scientifically or logically valid statements (this is fallacy).
Perhaps Wittgenstein summed it up most concisely by saying " What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent.".
In short, for the purpose of logical argument language must be exact, with the words having exact meanings in the field in which they are used, and not bve subject to interpretation or misundrstanding by the hearer. If the words used do not have exact meanings in the context of their use, ther can be no assumption of communicating a precise idea between the parties involved. i.e. to verify an experiment in science the experiment must be described preciesly so that there can be no possibility of conducting the experiment differently by a different researcher (meaning that a different, if similar, experiment had actually been conducted).
For instance, by saying " I believe 99% of those things the religious believe" do you really mean the majority of the religious tennets you are familiar with or do you mean an actual numerical 99% of the religious beliefs of Zoroastrians, or Christians, or Muslims, etc., or do you mean a numerical 99% all of the beliefs of all religious persons of all of time? And how, exactly, would you support that figure? I think you can see how supposedly 'logical' arguments seem to end up in so many total and vehement disagreements, with no one actually knowing what the other side means, only what they think is meant (in which case the disagreement is actually with our own understanding of what was meant , not what was actually meant). A simple philosophical question such as "Does God Exist?" requires a precise and non interpretable definitions of all three words in order to be subject to logical discussion or scientific investigation. And, even then, all we end up discussing or investigating is our limited definitions, which may bear no relation reality (again see Wittgenstein, proposition 1,2)
Yes, In know there are several logical errors in my reply, but it is still in the conversational, not precise, mode since no truly logical proposal has been formed yet.
That is true, even when, as most people do, they abdicate both their authority and resposibility, surrendering their authority to any agency (government, religion) who promises them easy answers and thir responsibility to anyone who promises them security and guaranteed success.
Hank
But that he exists is not a matter of definition or refutation. Either he does or doesn't and either way, there isn't anything you can change by thinking and defining about it.
If that is not clear, nothing is.
Whether the drug is harmful or not may not be known with certainty, because of statistical fluctations, as you point out, but whether the drug is harmful or not is most certainly testable, as you also point out. If the uncertainty bothers you, you could at least in principle fund a larger test with, say, a billion animals instead of a dozen.
Forgivable. Merely child's play. The most dangerous game is to confuse certainty and clarity with reality.
Well, I'll bite, Hank Kerchief. FWIW. As to social policy, I'd have to give it some more thought. My initial impression is that, to the extent that the effects of social policy can be observed, perhaps there is a way the falsifiability principle might apply in social policy contexts. For instance, it can be observed that there frequently exists a direct correlation between tyrannical regimes and the poor state of individuals living in such regimes, in the areas of nutrition, health, personal security, etc., etc. Still, the question doesn't really seem to have the kind of immediate clear-cutness that readily lends itself to direct experiment. So I really don't know how far we can go in saying the falsifiability principle may apply.
The case respecting religion is a whole lot clearer to me. The "object" subject to test simply does not lie within the sphere of physical reality per se. It seems to me that science is constructed for the investigation of the physical world. Unlike the case of social policy (which necessarily has physical ramifications), it seems to me that to catalog and test the "effects" of various religious persuasions (if one could figure out how to do that) ultimately would only reach to the character of the believer and his culture, not to the "object" that inspires the belief. In effect, though you may be able to put, say, Saddam Hussein "in the dock," there's really no way to "put God in the dock."
I am sure I haven't expressed this very well. With prodding, maybe I'll do better next time.
Thank you for posting this penetrating and important essay.
I believe there are many scientific truths that are untestable. For instance, the mathematical truth that there are an infinite number of primes is untestable. This truth is easy to prove but impossible to test. But I’m not a mathematician and perhaps a rigorous proof is equivalent to a test. I differentiate the two myself.
In every day language, when someone says, "I believe," something, they only mean this is the view I hold, and it indicates nothing about how they came to hold that view. When religious people say, "I believe whatever my leader says," it means they hold their views on authority, not rationally.
In short, you are using an opinion in an argument that began with logic.
Actually my opinion not only begins with logic, but is based on reason from the evidence and logic all the way to the end. I do not believe anything (hold as true) except on the basis of logic and reason. Since you misinterpreted what I mean by believe, your premise about speculation is gone.
Also, I am not a fan of Russell, et. al., and regard this "perfect logical language," nonsense, a pedantic ruse as philosophically useful as his "windowless monads." (Good grief!)
Now you asked: For instance, by saying " I believe 99% of those things the religious believe" do you really mean the majority of the religious tennets you are familiar with or do you mean an actual numerical 99% of the religious beliefs of Zoroastrians, or Christians, or Muslims, etc., or do you mean a numerical 99% all of the beliefs of all religious persons of all of time?
All the above!
And you asked: And how, exactly, would you support that figure?
On the basis that it is very conservative and adequate for a discussion on a forum. In reality the figure is certainly higher than 99%, but may not be quite 100%.
First, all religions disagree, or they would not be different religions. They may all be untrue, but if any of them are true, all the rest are untrue. Within any religion, there are factions. There are factions, because there are disagreements. Therefore, if any religion is true, within that religion, mayber no faction is correct, but if any faction is correct, all the rest are incorrect.
As you see, the field of possibly true religious belief has already become extremely small.
Within the field of religion, there are some beliefs that have a small measure of plausibility. Most religions are absurd from the outset. Of those that have something worth examining, most turn out to contain teachings that are rationally unacceptable as well.
In the Christian religion, for example, virtually every denomination accepts certain traditional teachings as doctrine which both disagree with their own Scriptures and reason.
When I said 99% of those things the religious believe are mostly irrational, I was being generous. There is very little evidence, if any, that anything religious, the religious believe is not superstition. I just did not have the heart to say 100%, with a possible exception or two I have not discovered.
Then you said, I think you can see how supposedly 'logical' arguments seem to end up in so many total and vehement disagreements, with no one actually knowing what the other side means, only what they think is meant (in which case the disagreement is actually with our own understanding of what was meant , not what was actually meant).
...but, I have no idea what it means.
(Warning, the above contains both reason and rhetoric, some serious, some for fun. Watch your step.)
Hank
And her reply, though in a very sarcastic way with a roll of the eyes, is "Sure Dear, your the best."
Therefore, according to the theory of falsifiability, I am the World's Greatest Lover,
and ask that henceforth, you show the respect that the title deserves. (/sarcasm)
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.