Falsification revisited, part 2

[pancreasman]

There were a few assertions in my post. That made your reply ambiguous so I apologise for not being clear in my response.

Science does lead to both true outcomes and false outcomes.
A process that leads to truth (and only truth) cannot lead to different outcomes, so we know that science is not a process that only leads to truth.

I don't see that I gave any grounds for concluding that arithmetic can never be right.

Regards,
Magellan

OK. Now let's look at arithmetic. Arithmetic is a human process. When you do arithmetic sometimes you get your sums wrong. This process then sometimes leads to true or false outcomes. Science is a human process too. Sometimes it will lead to outcomes which are 'true' (in the sense of accurately reflecting reality, and sometimes false (in the sense of being inaccurate.

Your argument seems to be that if it is possible in any process to get the 'wrong' answer, then the whole process is invalid.

My argument is that if you apply consistently this argument to arithmetic, then arithmetic must be invalid. Of course they aren't. The neat thing about both science and arithmetic is that built into both their methodologies are processes of testing claims objectively. Both science and arithmetic will self correct from within. Falsification is a part of the methodology of science for self correction.

Further: let us look at revelation as a system of gaining information.

A is an adherent of religion A' and fervently believes in the revealed tenets of his faith. He testifies that he experiences an 'inner witness' that what he believes is true.

B is an adherent of religion B'. He testifies exactly the same.

Trouble is, A and B contradict each other on what this revealed truth actually is. That is one, or both of them must be mistaken.

Therefore, following your argument revelation cannot possibly lead to truth.

Does the methodology of revelation have a methodology of self correction? No.

[magellan004]

Of course it isn't. If it were, we wouldn't need falsification, would we?

- FreezBee

I don't see how your comment follows from what I posted.
By the way, have you seen any objective, repeatable and empirical evidence that we need falsification?

Regards,
Magellan

[pancreasman]

I don't see how your comment follows from what I posted.
By the way, have you seen any objective, repeatable and empirical evidence that we need falsification?

Regards,
Magellan

Woosh! That's the sound of desperate goalposts moving on wheels.

[magellan004]

OK. Now let's look at arithmetic. Arithmetic is a human process. When you do arithmetic sometimes you get your sums wrong. This process then sometimes leads to true or false outcomes. Science is a human process too. Sometimes it will lead to outcomes which are 'true' (in the sense of accurately reflecting reality, and sometimes false (in the sense of being inaccurate.

Your argument seems to be that if it is possible in any process to get the 'wrong' answer, then the whole process is invalid.

No, no, no, no, no.

'This road leads to both A and B. ' (That's a visual example)
'Science leads to both A and B'

Nothing in that statement means science is invalid.
It can be good to 'get somewhere' (Say to A )
Sometimes it's not so good - if you follow the wrong bend (to B)

Science gives us no means of knowing whether we have arrived at A or B.
That's why falsification is bogus.
If we knew how to get to A why on Earth wouldn't science lead us to A all the time?

Regards,
Magellan

[pancreasman]

No, no, no, no, no.

'This road leads to both A and B. ' (That's a visual example)
'Science leads to both A and B'

Nothing in that statement means science is invalid.
It can be good to 'get somewhere' (Say to A )
Sometimes it's not so good - if you follow the wrong bend (to B)

Science gives us no means of knowing whether we have arrived at A or B.
That's why falsification is bogus.
If we knew how to get to A why on Earth wouldn't science lead us to A all the time?

Regards,
Magellan

Falsification is PRECISELY one part of the methodology to separate true from false. The fact you think science has no means of self correction merely shows your lack of science education. How do you suppose we went from geocentricism to heliocentrism? Falsification.

Please address all my other points.

[magellan004]

Explain why Magellan! Why do you think my statement is "stupid."

Science does lead to both true outcomes and false outcomes.

But your position seems to be that since science can occasionally lead to error, then it can never be correct.

A. Science does lead to truth sometimes
vs
B. Science can never be correct.

That is as blatant a contradiction as you can get.

I hope that helps.
Regards,
Magellan

[ericmurphy]

No, no, no, no, no.

'This road leads to both A and B. ' (That's a visual example)
'Science leads to both A and B'

Nothing in that statement means science is invalid.
It can be good to 'get somewhere' (Say to A )
Sometimes it's not so good - if you follow the wrong bend (to B)

Science gives us no means of knowing whether we have arrived at A or B.

Really? "This road leads to either San Francisco or Sacramento."

We follow the road. We end up in San Francisco.

But according to you, science gives us no way of knowing whether we have arrived in San Francisco or Sacramento? Is that really what you're saying? Do you realize how insane that is?

How about this? We can't tell whether 2 + 2= 4, or if 2 + 2 =5? We have no way of knowing which is true?

That's why falsification is bogus.

You really should stop saying this. You've already admitted that some statements are falsifiable.

And if you don't think they are, then explain how it can be true that all swans are white if some swans are black.

If we knew how to get to A why on Earth wouldn't science lead us to A all the time?

So now it's your position that science can only tell us things we already know?

[ericmurphy]

A. Science does lead to truth sometimes
vs
B. Science can never be correct.

That is as blatant a contradiction as you can get.

It seems to be your position, Magellan. It's certainly not my position. And it would hardly be the first contradictory position you've had. You've already admitted that at least some statements can be falsified; nevertheless, you continue to insist that falsification is impossible

Both statements cannot be true. One or the other must be false. But you apparently believe both of them.

[magellan004]

It seems to be your position, Magellan. It's certainly not my position. And it would hardly be the first contradictory position you've had. You've already admitted that at least some statements can be falsified; nevertheless, you continue to insist that falsification is impossible

Both statements cannot be true. One or the other must be false. But you apparently believe both of them.

You can't remember what you said a few minutes or hours ago so you start believing that I said it.

Regards,
Magellan

[magellan004]

Falsification is PRECISELY one part of the methodology to separate true from false. The fact you think science has no means of self correction merely shows your lack of science education. How do you suppose we went from geocentricism to heliocentrism? Falsification.

Please address all my other points.

If falsification works, then why are mistakes made?
Do scientists forget about falsification for a little while then BOING! they remember they should be doing it?

My argument is that if you apply consistently this argument to arithmetic, then arithmetic must be invalid. Of course they aren't. The neat thing about both science and arithmetic is that built into both their methodologies are processes of testing claims objectively. Both science and arithmetic will self correct from within.

Yes, testing achieves some control. It's not perfect but it's usually useful.

Falsification is a part of the methodology of science for self correction

What does falsification achieve that testing doesn't?

The way falsification is being presented here is that it is something that happens at the start (when the hypothesis is formed). Nothing on-going about it. Tests can be ongoing , until results are meaningful.

Regards,
Magellan.

[ericmurphy]

If falsification works, then why are mistakes made?

What does falsification have to do with mistakes being made, Magellan? They've got nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

Mistakes get made because scientists are human. Falsifiability is one of the ways mistakes are detected. If we could never know if a measurement were true or false, we'd never be able to detect a mistake in the first place; in fact, it would be difficult to argue that mistakes even exist.

Do scientists forget about falsification for a little while then BOING! they remember they should be doing it?

Of course not. All you're doing is showing the depth of your own ignorance.

Yes, testing achieves some control. It's not perfect but it's usually useful.

Not according to you. According to you, "testing" can't tell us anything anyway. It certainly cannot distinguish true statements from false statements, in your view.

What does falsification achieve that testing doesn't?

Testing and falsification are the same thing. An unfalsifiable statement is untestable. I think we've been through this with you before.

The way falsification is being presented here is that it is something that happens at the start (when the hypothesis is formed).

Nope. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Framing a hypothesis in a way that is falsifiable may happen at the beginning; attempts at falsification cannot happen until we know what a false outcome would be in the first place.

Nothing on-going about it. Tests can be ongoing , until results are meaningful.

You have nothing you can test for, Magellan. Everything "testing" is intended to do, you claim is impossible—even though you've already admitted that it is possible.

The truth of the matter, Magellan, is that you haven't the foggiest notion what "falsification," or "falsifiability," or even "testing" mean.

[magellan004]

What does falsification have to do with mistakes being made, Magellan? They've got nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

Mistakes get made because scientists are human. Falsifiability is one of the ways mistakes are detected. If we could never know if a measurement were true or false, we'd never be able to detect a mistake in the first place; in fact, it would be difficult to argue that mistakes even exist.



Of course not. All you're doing is showing the depth of your own ignorance.



Not according to you. According to you, "testing" can't tell us anything anyway. It certainly cannot distinguish true statements from false statements, in your view.



Testing and falsification are the same thing. An unfalsifiable statement is untestable. I think we've been through this with you before.


Nope. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Framing a hypothesis in a way that is falsifiable may happen at the beginning; attempts at falsification cannot happen until we know what a false outcome would be in the first place.



You have nothing you can test for, Magellan. Everything "testing" is intended to do, you claim is impossible—even though you've already admitted that it is possible.

The truth of the matter, Magellan, is that you haven't the foggiest notion what "falsification," or "falsifiability," or even "testing" mean.

If testing and falsification are the same thing then a 'passed' test result means true. True means error free.

The insanity barrier has been breached.

Regards,
Magellan

[pancreasman]

If testing and falsification are the same thing then a 'passed' test result means true. True means error free.

The insanity barrier has been breached.

Regards,
Magellan

And around we go .... No, passing a test adds perhaps to the robustness of a theory but of course, all theories in science are held provisionally. When a theory is FALSIFIED by a repeatable empirical observation we definitely know it's false.

Honestly, I'm beginning (!) to suspect some of your problems here are a lack of ability in the English language. You consistently confuse 'false' with 'falsifiable'.

[ericmurphy]

If testing and falsification are the same thing then a 'passed' test result means true. True means error free.

No. "True" means "not false." It has nothing to do with being "error free," whatever that means.

On the other hand, here's a concept you can't seem to get your mind around: a failed test. If a hypothesis fails a test (something you can't seem to conceive), that means it's false.

Not that it's "not error free." That it's wrong.

I know these are weird and mysterious concepts for you, Magellan. That can't be helped.

[ericmurphy]

Honestly, I'm beginning (!) to suspect some of your problems here are a lack of ability in the English language. You consistently confuse 'false' with 'falsifiable'.

That seems to go with the territory of being a creationist. Creationists cannot seem to be made to understand that a hypothesis can be both falsifiable and not false.