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 ...
Wow!
So, what you're saying is, belief in the supernatural is unscientific. And since the supernatural cannot be proved by reason or logic, either, belief in thesupernatural is also irrational and illogical.
I guess I agree with you!
Hank
No, I'm saying that proving and understanding all that is going on in creation with science only is like trying to see i-red, x-rays, radio waves, and gamma rays with a cheap inport 4 inch refractor telescope.
I see. So what is the better method for proving and understanding all that is going on? If not science, then what method would you use?
Hank
That's kind of a problem isn't it. We live in a natural universe that is paralleled by a spiritual universe which, by definition, is not tangible to the natural universe. You have a spirit but that lowest level of spiritual science can't be proven. So you either have to believe the invisible, IE all that is in the bible, or reject it. There is no immediate consequence on earth for rejecting it but there is later.
And dogma is immune to reason.
Reason, yeah that's powerful. What would reason say about Adam 1 minute after he was created?
Play on words. Reason is tied to the natural therefore it rephrases what I said in the first place.
Yes, by definition.
Of course, disbelief is a belief unto itself.
I can only imagine what it was like for Paul among the Greeks since they, too, were so knowledgeable.
He was loathe to discuss or try and persuade them with reason. He said reason makes the Word of no effect. Or something like that.
"scientific method" is one of the first things mentioned in the article.
Yes it is. Where is "supernatural" found?
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.