Popper - Falsification and a Life's Struggle

[magellan004]

Your over stating the problem of theories and hypotheses being provisional, conditional and qualified. There is an important part of the objective methods of science and falsification that all theories and hypotheses are subject to being found false, or subject to modification in consideration of new information. This is important part of science.that 'yes' this process is perfectly capable of refuting theories and hypotheses, and the modification of theories and hypotheses based on new information based on research and observation.

I accurately described Popper's ideas. If I did not accurately describe them then please show specifically where I misrepresent what Popper said. I am not the one overstating anything. Popper is.
Your language is contradictory - 'Yes science is provisional ' vs 'Yes we can show false'. < - Total contradiction. If you can establish false, you can establish truth through the same method. If I can prove that all swans are white is false through observation then why on Earth wouldn't I be able to establish that one swan is black through observation? Where does 'provisional' fit in?

No, a 'true statement' is not the only way to refute a claim. All claimed 'true statements' proposed in theories and hypotheses are subject to falsification

You are simply begging the question.
Popper says that to refute a claim you make an observation that establishes False.
If looking at a black swan means that 'Swans are white' is False then why doesn't looking at a black swan establish 'Some swans are black' as True?

Magellan

[shunyadragon]

[quote]

I accurately described Popper's ideas. If I did not accurately describe them then please show specifically where I misrepresent what Popper said. I am not the one overstating anything. Popper is.
Your language is contradictory - 'Yes science is provisional ' vs 'Yes we can show false'. < - Total contradiction. If you can establish false, you can establish truth through the same method. If I can prove that all swans are white is false through observation then why on Earth wouldn't I be able to establish that one swan is black through observation? Where does 'provisional' fit in?

No total contradiction here. If science was not provisional there would no method of showing something false.

You are simply begging the question.
Popper says that to refute a claim you make an observation that establishes False.
If looking at a black swan means that 'Swans are white' is False then why doesn't looking at a black swan establish 'Some swans are black' as True?

Magellan

No begging the question at all. If you find one black swan, the original proposition is falsified. You may modify it by saying 'most swans are white.'

I asked you a direct question and you failed to answer it.

Can you support any method where 'truth statements' are useful at the theory and hypothesis level of science?

[KBertsche]

Your comments touch on a raft of issues.
1. The hypothesis ' Particles cannot be accelerated to go faster than c' means 'There is no particle that can ... '.

Correct. But this is not just a "hypothesis"; it is a provable consequence of Einstein's theory.

Untestable.

Incorrect. This is exactly how we test theories in science. We derive consequences of the theory, and see whether or not the consequences hold up observationally.

2. You may be lucky to find a particle that does travel faster - as Icarus found.

ICARUS found that the neutrinos did NOT travel faster than light. ATLAS claimed to measure particles that travelled faster than light. No one actually found particles that travelled faster than light.

The results were dismissed because they didn't fit the untestable hypothesis.

Incorrect. The results were not dismissed at all. Rather, they caused quite a bit of excitement in the physics world. This was an interesting puzzle to be solved.

That's fine if you use luck in science.

Luck often plays a role in science.

3. Popper turned science into absolute logic when he proposed that an mere observation could establish truth.

Popper did not turn science into anything. He did not change science at all. Rather, as an outsider he tried to understand and explain how science is done.

4. There can be no test of an hypothesis that allows for 'X was absent therefore the hypothesis is refuted.'. Simply because the hypothesis is tested through confirmatory observations, not absences.

In summary an observation cannot show that something is absent. An observation can confirm that something is present. Logic dictates that.

Not quite correct. If a theory predicts that something MUST exist or occur and we can do an exhaustive enough search to show that it does NOT exist or occur, then the theory is shown false.

I have no problem with what happened at CERN, with ATLAS and ICARUS. Flawed experiments etc. That's good. The issue is one guy saying 'A mere observation without a test establishes True.' and pop-media taking it on board and issuing a public decree that 'Falsifiability is necessary'.

Magellan

I don't really understand what you're getting at here.

[magellan004]

[QUOTE=shunyadragon;3410568]

No total contradiction here. If science was not provisional there would no method of showing something false.
No begging the question at all. If you find one black swan, the original proposition is falsified. You may modify it by saying 'most swans are white.'
I asked you a direct question and you failed to answer it.
Can you support any method where 'truth statements' are useful at the theory and hypothesis level of science?

I can't follow most of your reasoning.
Let's use an example -

Statement 1. 'There are no X's.'
Statement 2. "I observe X'
Statement 3 'Statement 2 may be false.'
Statement 4. (Falsification) 'Statement 2 shows that Statement 1 is false without doubt. There is no need to test Statement 2. We can accept statement 2 as being absolutely true now, yesterday and forever.'

The point is Statements One, Two, Three and Four are not provisional.


You asked Can you support any method where 'truth statements' are useful at the theory and hypothesis level of science?
Yes I can.
The Bible contains true statements so a method based on the Bible will always be useful. Truth is always useful.

Magellan

[magellan004]

Not quite correct. If a theory predicts that something MUST exist or occur and we can do an exhaustive enough search to show that it does NOT exist or occur, then the theory is shown false.

What do you mean 'an exhaustive enough search'?

There have been many instances where animals have been declared extinct - 'This animal X still exists' , < - Shown false by exhaustive tests, only to be found decades later.
There is no logical way to prove non-existence.


Magellan

[ZackMartin]

There is no logical way to prove non-existence.

There is no logical way to prove non-existence if the search space is large enough (in terms of space and time). Can I be confident that there are no fairies anywhere in the universe? I don't think I can. Maybe in a distant galaxy, there is a planet on which fairies really exist -- how would I know? Can I be confident there are no fairies in my top desk drawer right now? Yes, I'm looking in it and it is empty and I don't see any. (Let's assume we are only talking about visible fairies, and leave the invisible ones aside for now.) So, make the search space small in space and time, and you can prove non-existence. But the bigger you make it, the harder it gets, and you soon get the point where it is impossible in practice.

[KBertsche]

Not quite correct. If a theory predicts that something MUST exist or occur and we can do an exhaustive enough search to show that it does NOT exist or occur, then the theory is shown false.

What do you mean 'an exhaustive enough search'?

My statement was very clear: "an exhaustive enough search to show that [the prediction] does NOT exist or occur". The specifics of the search will depend on the nature of the prediction.

There have been many instances where animals have been declared extinct - 'This animal X still exists' , < - Shown false by exhaustive tests, only to be found decades later.
There is no logical way to prove non-existence.


Magellan

Again, my statement was very clear: "If a theory predicts that something MUST exist or occur ..." A scientific theory does not only make general predictions, e.g. that a black swan will exist somewhere, sometime in the universe. Rather, a scientific theory must make specific, testable predictions, e.g. if certain specific criteria are satisfied, then a black swan WILL exist at a specific time and place, or x% of the swan population will be black, or some other testable (falsifiable) claim.

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=magellan004;3412535]

I can't follow most of your reasoning.
Let's use an example -

Statement 1. 'There are no X's.'
Statement 2. "I observe X'
Statement 3 'Statement 2 may be false.'
Statement 4. (Falsification) 'Statement 2 shows that Statement 1 is false without doubt. There is no need to test Statement 2. We can accept statement 2 as being absolutely true now, yesterday and forever.'

The point is Statements One, Two, Three and Four are not provisional.

Most definitely statement 1 is provisional, because it is limited to the swans that have been observed, not all swans. If a black swan is observed the provisional statement 1 is found false. Therefore a new statement can be made that most swans are white. This provisional statement can be found false if in the future more black swans are found than white swans.

You asked Can you support any method where 'truth statements' are useful at the theory and hypothesis level of science?
Yes I can.
The Bible contains true statements so a method based on the Bible will always be useful. Truth is always useful.

Magellan

Most claims of truth statements in the Bible cannot be confirmed by observation.

[ZackMartin]

My statement was very clear: "an exhaustive enough search to show that [the prediction] does NOT exist or occur". The specifics of the search will depend on the nature of the prediction.

But in reality, often there is no magic line at which we can say "the prediction does NOT occur". All we can say, is the more negative results we receive, the probability that the prediction is true falls. We get to a certain cutoff of probability, and declare the prediction disproven. But since the probability is non-zero, there is still a very small chance the prediction is nonetheless true, and just by bad luck we've falsely concluded that it is false. With more and more evidence, we can reduce this probability as low as we like, but it never gets to zero. Furthermore, the question of where to place the cutoff is to a great extent arbitrary. The conventional standard of proof in particle physics is five sigmas. But why five sigmas? Why not four or six or 4.9 or 5.1? It is just an arbitrary standard that the physics community has adopted, and there are other possible standards which could equally be adopted. (It's not totally arbitrary - it's driven by past experiences of finding results at 2-sigma or 3-sigma that turned out to be statistical noise; and given how expensive particle physics is, a stricter standard might be practically challenging; but the fact that it is 5 rather than 4.9 or 5.1 is just due to a human preference for integers.) So the question of whether some prediction has been "disproven" or "proven" turns out to be based at least in part on arbitrary social conventions adopted by the relevant scientific community.

Again, my statement was very clear: "If a theory predicts that something MUST exist or occur ..." A scientific theory does not only make general predictions, e.g. that a black swan will exist somewhere, sometime in the universe. Rather, a scientific theory must make specific, testable predictions, e.g. if certain specific criteria are satisfied, then a black swan WILL exist at a specific time and place, or x% of the swan population will be black, or some other testable (falsifiable) claim.

But look at particle physics experiments - they make explicit testable predictions, and yet they never produce a 100% probability that the claimed phenomena exists or does not exist. When they get to five sigmas, they still only have 99.99995% that the given effect has or has not been observed. There is still a 0.00005% that the observation or failure to observe is simply a statistical fluke due to random sampling. And no matter how much more data they gather, they can make the sampling error as small as they like, but it never reaches zero. They just get to a culturally defined point and say "enough!"

And this isn't just true of particle physics. It is true, at least, of all fields of science that primarily rely on statistical methods for confirmation and disconfirmation.

[phank]

And no matter how much more data they gather, they can make the sampling error as small as they like, but it never reaches zero. They just get to a culturally defined point and say "enough!"

And this isn't just true of particle physics. It is true, at least, of all fields of science that primarily rely on statistical methods for confirmation and disconfirmation.

Yes and no. Specific, individual statistical tests can never be Absolutely Dispositive. But as has been said, they can be close enough so that it would be "perverse to withhold provisional assent" even considered by themselves. And IF these highly probable results are true, this generally leads to a number of predictions as to what should or should not be observed under specific conditions. If these predictions are themselves statistically likely to be correct after testing, this lends additional support to the initial "probably true" result. Scientific discovery being a cumulative affair, eventually the "not quite zero error" becomes one of multiple pillars supporting an ever-taller superstructure of findings. If it were even a tiny bit wrong, the results based on the results based on the results based on the results based on the initial results wouldn't be supporable.

[magellan004]

There is no logical way to prove non-existence if the search space is large enough (in terms of space and time). Can I be confident that there are no fairies anywhere in the universe? I don't think I can. Maybe in a distant galaxy, there is a planet on which fairies really exist -- how would I know? Can I be confident there are no fairies in my top desk drawer right now? Yes, I'm looking in it and it is empty and I don't see any. (Let's assume we are only talking about visible fairies, and leave the invisible ones aside for now.) So, make the search space small in space and time, and you can prove non-existence. But the bigger you make it, the harder it gets, and you soon get the point where it is impossible in practice.

Your personal feelings of confidence have nothing to do with True/False states.
If someone declares 'X is False' that has nothing to do with confidence. It is an absolute statement about Truth states, constant - for all time.


By the way - I welcome our input here. This forum is a different world to the well mannered Apologetics forum.

Magellan

[magellan004]

My statement was very clear: "an exhaustive enough search to show that [the prediction] does NOT exist or occur". The specifics of the search will depend on the nature of the prediction.

A test without criteria. Popper was seduced by Einstein. Einstein laid down a law without a test, without criteria. Other people thought up a test - without criteria. Eddington sailed out to conduct a test without criteria. He collected data. He reported the data. No mention of criteria. How could Eddington NOT confirm Einstein?

No - as you say in the next part of your post - criteria are essential. Criteria are laid down before testing - not afterwards.

Again, my statement was very clear: "If a theory predicts that something MUST exist or occur ..." A scientific theory does not only make general predictions, e.g. that a black swan will exist somewhere, sometime in the universe. Rather, a scientific theory must make specific, testable predictions, e.g. if certain specific criteria are satisfied, then a black swan WILL exist at a specific time and place, or x% of the swan population will be black, or some other testable (falsifiable) claim.

How would you test 'that a black swan will exist somewhere, sometime in the universe.' ? Please state a test and criteria. (Not a 'specific place'. You said 'Somewhere'.)

Magellan

[magellan004]

[QUOTE=shunyadragon;3412757]

Most definitely statement 1 is provisional, because it is limited to the swans that have been observed, not all swans. If a black swan is observed the provisional statement 1 is found false. Therefore a new statement can be made that most swans are white. This provisional statement can be found false if in the future more black swans are found than white swans.




Most claims of truth statements in the Bible cannot be confirmed by observation.

You and I are on a different wavelength. Peace. I like your attitude.

Magellan

[KBertsche]

A test without criteria. Popper was seduced by Einstein. Einstein laid down a law without a test, without criteria. Other people thought up a test - without criteria. Eddington sailed out to conduct a test without criteria. He collected data. He reported the data. No mention of criteria. How could Eddington NOT confirm Einstein?

No - as you say in the next part of your post - criteria are essential. Criteria are laid down before testing - not afterwards.

I haven't mentioned "criteria", and I'm not quite sure what you mean by it. It almost sounds like you want science to follow some sort of rigid formulaic procedure which can be run by computer. This is not science.

A scientific theory leads to specific predictions. Some of these will be suggested by the theorist himself (e.g. Einstein). Many more will come from experimenters who set out to test the theory. The specific "criteria" by which a test of the predictions of a theory is judged depend on the specifics of the test itself. Thus they must by set out by the experimenter (e.g. Eddington), not by the original theorist (e.g. Einstein) who knows nothing of the specifics of future experiments.

How would you test 'that a black swan will exist somewhere, sometime in the universe.' ? Please state a test and criteria. (Not a 'specific place'. You said 'Somewhere'.)

Magellan

That was exactly my point. Such a broad generality cannot be tested very reliably. We need specific claims, which any good scientific theory will produce.

[magellan004]

I haven't mentioned "criteria", and I'm not quite sure what you mean by it. It almost sounds like you want science to follow some sort of rigid formulaic procedure which can be run by computer. This is not science.

A scientific theory leads to specific predictions. Some of these will be suggested by the theorist himself (e.g. Einstein). Many more will come from experimenters who set out to test the theory. The specific "criteria" by which a test of the predictions of a theory is judged depend on the specifics of the test itself. Thus they must by set out by the experimenter (e.g. Eddington), not by the original theorist (e.g. Einstein) who knows nothing of the specifics of future experiments.

I agree with all the above.
Einstein proposes an idea and Eddington ventures out and collects data.
I don't know if you call that a test. I'd say a test has other components - criteria and conclusion. Eg - 'Smoking causes cancer. Collect data on 1000 people. Criteria - If 80% have cancer and smoke, then conclude smoking causes cancer.'

There is nothing wrong with ''Smoking causes cancer. Collect data on 1000 people.' It's only when you say after the event - 'See 5% have cancer, therefore smoking causes cancer.' That's an ad-hoc conclusion without merit. It is not a test (in my book).

That's what Popper did with Eddington's summary. Eddingtion compiled data and reported back his data . Other people then wondered whether it actually settled anything. Popper was over-the-moon about the 'confirmation.'
I find that approach by Popper contradictory: Any result can confirm the theory, depending on whether I like the theory.

That was exactly my point. Such a broad generality cannot be tested very reliably. We need specific claims, which any good scientific theory will produce.

Some people think in different term to me. I understand that. To me it is simple. 'Y is false because I saw X' means that 'X is true because I saw X.' Some people have different concepts of black and white so the debate will always go on.

Anyway - thank you for your thoughts.
Magellan