Falsification revisited, part 2

[FreezBee]

Ok, let's move on beyond running around in the same circles over and over again.

Consider a theory with the following axioms:

1. There are exactly 5 swans
2. There are at least 2 white swans

How many white swans are there?

The above theory allows for the following

• There are possible worlds in which there are exactly 2 white swans
• There are possible worlds in which there are exactly 3 white swans
• There are possible worlds in which there are exactly 4 white swans
• There are possible worlds in which there are exactly 5 white swans

One of these sets of possible worlds contains the real world (perhaps not the real real world, that has more than 5 swans in it, but some real world)

We can pick any of these sets and make the hypothesis that it contains the real world -- we have no information in our theory that excludes any of the sets.

Say we pick the set with possible world in which there are exactly 3 white swans; that is we actually make the hypothesis that there are exactly 3 white swans.

Checking all 5 swans and finding that exactly 3 of them are white will prove the hypothesis, whereas finding 3 non-white swans (since we know that there are exactly 5 swans total) will falsify the hypothesis.

Note that we are not discussing epistemology here -- hpw we can know how many swans there are, whether a given object really is a swan, and whether some swan is white or designed or a constellation is outside the scope of this discussion.

We are dealing with simple logic: if exactly three swans out of exactly 5 swans are white, then exactly three swans out of exactly 5 swans are white, and if at least 3 swans out of exactly 5 swans are not-white, then at most 2 of the exactly 5 swans can be white.

Ok, the point is that our hypothesis satisfies the following requirements:

1. The hypothesis describes a possible world (relative to some theory)
2. There is at least one possible world (relative to the same theory) not described by the hypothesis

These are the requirements for a falsifiable hypothesis.

Note that a hypothesis can be falsifiable without anybody bothering to falsify it, because of requirement 1, which implies you must also be able to verify the hypothesis.

Consider the following theory:

1. There is an unknown, but 'large' number of swans
2. All known swans are white

We can put forth the hypothesis: all swans are white.

Obviously this hypothesis is easier to falsify, because as we scavenge the world for swans, we can stop, if we encounter a not-white swan.


Now, consider this theory:

1. There is an unknown, but 'large' number of swans

and this hypothesis: all swans are designed.

Is that hypothesis falsifiable?


- FreezBee

[ericmurphy]

Since we cannot recognize a "non-designed" swan when we see one (at least, not until we have an operational definition of "designed," such that we can analyze a given swan and determine whether it is "designed" or not), we could observe every single swan in existence, and still not know whether it is true or false that all swans are "designed."

In many cases, we cannot tell whether a specific swan is "designed" or not. While there is a class of swans (simulacra manufactured by humans) that we can say are definitely "designed," there is a much larger number of actual, biological organisms that are taxonomically designated "swans" that we cannot determine one way or another whether they are "designed."

Hence, in many cases, an assertion that even a specific swan is "designed" is unfalsifiable.

[FreezBee]

Since we cannot recognize a "non-designed" swan when we see one (at least, not until we have an operational definition of "designed," such that we can analyze a given swan and determine whether it is "designed" or not), we could observe every single swan in existence, and still not know whether it is true or false that all swans are "designed."

In many cases, we cannot tell whether a specific swan is "designed" or not. While there is a class of swans (simulacra manufactured by humans) that we can say are definitely "designed," there is a much larger number of actual, biological organisms that are taxonomically designated "swans" that we cannot determine one way or another whether they are "designed."

Hence, in many cases, an assertion that even a specific swan is "designed" is unfalsifiable.

Quite true, but please follow the procedure outlined in the OP.

Are there possible worlds in which all swans are designed?
Are there possible worlds in which at least one swan is not designed?


- FreezBee

[ericmurphy]

Quite true, but please follow the procedure outlined in the OP.

Are there possible worlds in which all swans are designed?

Yes. It is possible that in this world all swans are designed.

Are there possible worlds in which at least one swan is not designed?

Yep.

Problem is, we could replace the word "designed" with the word "aoisbus," and nothing would change.

Why?

Because the word "designed" has no more of an agreed-upon meaning than that the word "aoisbus" does.

[FreezBee]

Yes. It is possible that in this world all swans are designed.



Yep.

Problem is, we could replace the word "designed" with the word "aoisbus," and nothing would change.

Why?

Because the word "designed" has no more of an agreed-upon meaning than that the word "aoisbus" does.

Ok, so it boils down to, how do we determine whether a swan is designed or not.

A swan is designed, if _____________.

A swan is not designed, if _____________.

Can anyone fill in either of the blanks?


- FreezBee

[magellan004]

Ok, let's move on beyond running around in the same circles over and over again.

Consider a theory with the following axioms:

1. There are exactly 5 swans
2. There are at least 2 white swans

How many white swans are there?

The above theory allows for the following

• There are possible worlds in which there are exactly 2 white swans
• There are possible worlds in which there are exactly 3 white swans
• There are possible worlds in which there are exactly 4 white swans
• There are possible worlds in which there are exactly 5 white swans

One of these sets of possible worlds contains the real world (perhaps not the real real world, that has more than 5 swans in it, but some real world)

We can pick any of these sets and make the hypothesis that it contains the real world -- we have no information in our theory that excludes any of the sets.

Say we pick the set with possible world in which there are exactly 3 white swans; that is we actually make the hypothesis that there are exactly 3 white swans.

Checking all 5 swans and finding that exactly 3 of them are white will prove the hypothesis, whereas finding 3 non-white swans (since we know that there are exactly 5 swans total) will falsify the hypothesis.

Note that we are not discussing epistemology here -- hpw we can know how many swans there are, whether a given object really is a swan, and whether some swan is white or designed or a constellation is outside the scope of this discussion.

We are dealing with simple logic: if exactly three swans out of exactly 5 swans are white, then exactly three swans out of exactly 5 swans are white, and if at least 3 swans out of exactly 5 swans are not-white, then at most 2 of the exactly 5 swans can be white.

Ok, the point is that our hypothesis satisfies the following requirements:

1. The hypothesis describes a possible world (relative to some theory)
2. There is at least one possible world (relative to the same theory) not described by the hypothesis

These are the requirements for a falsifiable hypothesis.

Note that a hypothesis can be falsifiable without anybody bothering to falsify it, because of requirement 1, which implies you must also be able to verify the hypothesis.

Consider the following theory:

1. There is an unknown, but 'large' number of swans
2. All known swans are white

We can put forth the hypothesis: all swans are white.

Obviously this hypothesis is easier to falsify, because as we scavenge the world for swans, we can stop, if we encounter a not-white swan.


Now, consider this theory:

1. There is an unknown, but 'large' number of swans

and this hypothesis: all swans are designed.

Is that hypothesis falsifiable?


- FreezBee

I think these conditions are contradictory - 1. 'We are not discussing how we can know ... ' and 2. Having an hypothesis that can be tested.

There must be some way of 'finding' swans. The conditions make knowing whether an hypotheis is 'confirmed', 'proved' ,'falsified' impossible. The tests may lead to a conclusion but we cannot know what that conclusion is because the end of testing should yield some knowledge.

Another way to put this is that testing and falsifying are activities.

Regards,
Magellan.

[ericmurphy]

I think these conditions are contradictory - 1. 'We are not discussing how we can know ... ' and 2. Having an hypothesis that can be tested.

They're not. You still cannot understand what is meant by "in principle." We can talk about whether it is possible in principle to determine something without getting into the practical details of how we determine it.

There must be some way of 'finding' swans. The conditions make knowing whether an hypotheis is 'confirmed', 'proved' ,'falsified' impossible.

No they don't. For example, it is possible in principle to determine whether or not a swan is "designed." But if you want to say you can actually determine whether a swan is "designed," then you get into the practicality of making that determination.

The tests may lead to a conclusion but we cannot know what that conclusion is because the end of testing should yield some knowledge.

We're not (yet) talking about what the conclusion is. We're talking about whether or not a conclusion is even possible in the first place.

Another way to put this is that testing and falsifying are activities.

Well, that's certainly helpful. No one here had any idea that "testing" and "falsifying" are activities.

Have you ever gotten the feeling that you might be way out of your depth, Magellan?

[magellan004]

They're not. You still cannot understand what is meant by "in principle." We can talk about whether it is possible in principle to determine something without getting into the practical details of how we determine it.


No they don't. For example, it is possible in principle to determine whether or not a swan is "designed." But if you want to say you can actually determine whether a swan is "designed," then you get into the practicality of making that determination.



We're not (yet) talking about what the conclusion is. We're talking about whether or not a conclusion is even possible in the first place.



Well, that's certainly helpful. No one here had any idea that "testing" and "falsifying" are activities.

Have you ever gotten the feeling that you might be way out of your depth, Magellan?

You cannot tell that a thing is possible to do in principle if you cannot tell whether it is possible to do at all.

Regards,
Magellan

[ericmurphy]

You cannot tell that a thing is possible to do in principle if you cannot tell whether it is possible to do at all.

Yes I can. The statement "all swans are 'designed'" is in principle falsifiable, if you can come up with a way to test for "designed." Your only problem with demonstrating that a design hypothesis is falsifiable is your failure to come up with a test for "designed."

Wrong again, Magellan.

[FreezBee]

I think these conditions are contradictory - 1. 'We are not discussing how we can know ... ' and 2. Having an hypothesis that can be tested.

There must be some way of 'finding' swans. The conditions make knowing whether an hypotheis is 'confirmed', 'proved' ,'falsified' impossible. The tests may lead to a conclusion but we cannot know what that conclusion is because the end of testing should yield some knowledge.

Another way to put this is that testing and falsifying are activities.

Regards,
Magellan.

We are not so much talking about falsifying, but about falsification -- that is, whether falsification is a demarcation criterium for a scientific theory or hypothesis.


- FreezBee

[ericmurphy]

I'm still not persuaded Magellan understands what it means for an observation to falsify a hypothesis. What else to make of his resistance to the notion that observing a black swan falsifies the assertion that all swans are white?

ETA: Maybe this is a better way to put it: "We're not talking about falsifying, we're talking about falsifiability. Is it possible, in principle, for the hypothesis in question to be falsified, or even more prosaically, is it possible for the hypothesis to be determined to be false?

[magellan004]

Ok, so it boils down to, how do we determine whether a swan is designed or not.

A swan is designed, if _____________.

A swan is not designed, if _____________.

Can anyone fill in either of the blanks?


- FreezBee

It depends what you are boiling down. The same problem exists with colour - 'How do we determine whether a swan is white or not?'

Note that we are not discussing epistemology here -- how we can know how many swans there are, whether a given object really is a swan, and whether some swan is white or designed or a constellation is outside the scope of this discussion

Your Opening post ruled out 'A swan is designed if ...' , 'A swan is white if ... 'stuff.
Because of the inevitable tirade that will probably follow about how 'We can determine if a swan is white' let's try this -

Ok, let's move on beyond running around in the same circles over and over again. Consider a theory with the following axioms:

1. There are exactly 5 swans
2. There are at least 2 designed swans

How many designed swans are there?
(Edited for brevity)
Say we pick the set with possible world in which there are exactly 3 designed swans; that is we actually make the hypothesis that there are exactly 3 designed swans.

Checking all 5 swans and finding that exactly 3 of them are designed will prove the hypothesis, whereas finding 3 non-designed swans (since we know that there are exactly 5 swans total) will falsify the hypothesis.

Note that we are not discussing epistemology here -- hpw we can know how many swans there are, whether a given object really is a swan, and whether some swan is white or designed or a constellation is outside the scope of this discussion.

Ok, the point is that our hypothesis satisfies the following requirements:

1. The hypothesis describes a possible world (relative to some theory)
2. There is at least one possible world (relative to the same theory) not described by the hypothesis

These are the requirements for a falsifiable hypothesis.

Regards,
Magellan

[FreezBee]

It depends what you are boiling down. The same problem exists with colour - 'How do we determine whether a swan is white or not?'



Your Opening post ruled out 'A swan is designed if ...' , 'A swan is white if ... 'stuff.
Because of the inevitable tirade that will probably follow about how 'We can determine if a swan is white' let's try this -

Ok, let's move on beyond running around in the same circles over and over again. Consider a theory with the following axioms:

1. There are exactly 5 swans
2. There are at least 2 designed swans

How many designed swans are there?
(Edited for brevity)
Say we pick the set with possible world in which there are exactly 3 designed swans; that is we actually make the hypothesis that there are exactly 3 designed swans.

Checking all 5 swans and finding that exactly 3 of them are designed will prove the hypothesis, whereas finding 3 non-designed swans (since we know that there are exactly 5 swans total) will falsify the hypothesis.

Note that we are not discussing epistemology here -- hpw we can know how many swans there are, whether a given object really is a swan, and whether some swan is white or designed or a constellation is outside the scope of this discussion.

Ok, the point is that our hypothesis satisfies the following requirements:

1. The hypothesis describes a possible world (relative to some theory)
2. There is at least one possible world (relative to the same theory) not described by the hypothesis

These are the requirements for a falsifiable hypothesis.

Regards,
Magellan

Yes indeed -- schematically speaking. Does that mean that you acknowledge that falsifiability is a demarcation criterium for scientific theories/hypotheses?


- FreezBee

[ericmurphy]

It depends what you are boiling down. The same problem exists with colour - 'How do we determine whether a swan is white or not?'

No it doesn't, because you know as well as we do how we determine whether or not a swan is "white." You have no idea how we determine if a swan is "designed."

For you to continue to pretend otherwise is simply the height of intellectual dishonesty.

We are "boiling down" to the question of whether the assertion that a swan is "designed" is falsifiable, and if so, how would we go about it.

We already know (your protestations notwithstanding) that it is possible to falsify the claim that all swans are white. We're trying to find out if you can think of a way to falsify the claim that all swans are "designed."

Your Opening post ruled out 'A swan is designed if ...' , 'A swan is white if ... 'stuff.

How did it do that, Magellan? All Freezbee excluded was a discussion of the methods of determining whether a swan is "white," or "designed." It certainly did not rule out a discussion of what is meant by a "white" swan or a "designed" swan.

Because of the inevitable tirade that will probably follow about how 'We can determine if a swan is white' let's try this -

Ok, let's move on beyond running around in the same circles over and over again. Consider a theory with the following axioms:

1. There are exactly 5 swans
2. There are at least 2 designed swans

How many designed swans are there?
(Edited for brevity)
Say we pick the set with possible world in which there are exactly 3 designed swans; that is we actually make the hypothesis that there are exactly 3 designed swans.

Checking all 5 swans and finding that exactly 3 of them are designed will prove the hypothesis, whereas finding 3 non-designed swans (since we know that there are exactly 5 swans total) will falsify the hypothesis.

Note that we are not discussing epistemology here -- hpw we can know how many swans there are, whether a given object really is a swan, and whether some swan is white or designed or a constellation is outside the scope of this discussion.

Ok, the point is that our hypothesis satisfies the following requirements:

1. The hypothesis describes a possible world (relative to some theory)
2. There is at least one possible world (relative to the same theory) not described by the hypothesis

These are the requirements for a falsifiable hypothesis.

Regards,
Magellan

You left out one critical detail, as you always do: what sort of observations can be made that can falsify the hypothesis?

We already know what sorts of observations falsify the assertion that all swans are white.

You don't know what sorts of observations would falsify the assertion that all swans (or even that any swans) are "designed."

[magellan004]

Yes indeed -- schematically speaking. Does that mean that you acknowledge that falsifiability is a demarcation criterium for scientific theories/hypotheses?


- FreezBee

I acknowledge that falsification is a thing important in some peoples' imagination.
The concepts are interesting, which is also important to us arm-chair scientists and philosophers.

Regards,
Magellan