Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print
Is falsifiability concept scintific? (Read 5100 times)
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 35069
At my desk.
Re: Is falsifiability concept scintific?
Reply #30 - Dec 5th, 2008 at 2:53pm
 
locutius wrote on Dec 5th, 2008 at 2:10pm:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

Quote:
The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, anthropology, and others. One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science". An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution". A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.


This is not merely argumentum ad populum, this is a community of what is recognised as our prominate thinkers who have (I assume) given a considered vote.



Right, but it has nothing to do with whether evolution is a sicentific theory.

Quote:
I may struggle with this argument as I only ever went to level 10 science


We covered the scientific method in grade 10 science I think.

Quote:
Firstly maybe Popper got it wrong!


Maybe, but you'll have to do better than that. Maybe he was right!

Quote:
His own idea of the methodology of science is a theory is it not.


I'm not sure if that is a suitable description.

Quote:
Maybe the concept of evolution is his methodology's Achilles heel.


If we have to change the definition of science just for the sake of the theory of evolution, maybe it's time we took another look at evolution, rather than science. Most practicing evolutionists acknowledge this issue in calling themselves natural historians.

Quote:
The fact that a scientific theory is not certain is hardly an excuse to exclude it from science


That is not my reason.

Quote:
What did Popper have to say about a theory that defies the tests to falsify it. Was it to be just fobbed off, because I would have thought the opposite would be the case. That the idea be graduated to another level of prestige.


Not sure what you are asking.

Quote:
The evolution theory is scientific and falsifiability concept can be discounted because it is unscientific as we found out in this very thread.


That doesn't make sense Tallow. This is philosophy, not science. We are not doing experiments to test who is right.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Is falsifiability concept scintific?
Reply #31 - Dec 5th, 2008 at 2:54pm
 
How do you falsify the theory that time progresses at a steady rate for a single observer at rest?
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Django
New Member
*
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 4
Re: Is falsifiability concept scintific?
Reply #32 - Dec 5th, 2008 at 2:55pm
 
tallowood wrote on Dec 5th, 2008 at 2:31pm:
The evolution theory is scientific and falsifiability concept can be discounted because it is unscientific as we found out in this very thread.


Oh please what nonsence. Seeing Popper seems to be popular here, this is what he has to say:

"When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory - that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and by the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many severe and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism. "

All scientific theories are are only one piece of contrary evidence away from being refuted. Evolution is one of the strongest, and has stood against not only the strongest scientific scrutiny but also the nitpicking of numerous religious detractors, and evidence in support of it mounts daily.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Is falsifiability concept scintific?
Reply #33 - Dec 5th, 2008 at 2:57pm
 
Django wrote on Dec 5th, 2008 at 2:55pm:
tallowood wrote on Dec 5th, 2008 at 2:31pm:
The evolution theory is scientific and falsifiability concept can be discounted because it is unscientific as we found out in this very thread.


Oh please what nonsence. Seeing Popper seems to be popular here, this is what he has to say:


I don't think Popper is all that popular here. There have been a lot of assumptions made about the validity of his claims, which I'd consider to be unmerited.

Quote:
All scientific theories are are only one piece of contrary evidence away from being refuted. Evolution is one of the strongest, and has stood against not only the strongest scientific scrutiny but also the nitpicking of numerous religious detractors, and evidence in support of it mounts daily


I'd agree almost 100%, except that there are other minor mechanisms that come into play. There has been recent research that shows that inheritance of bacterial resistance can be transmitted from mother to child across the __ membrane.


I'll have to research this a bit more (any biologists care to expound?)
Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 5th, 2008 at 3:04pm by muso »  

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
tallowood
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 4230
Re: Is falsifiability concept scintific?
Reply #34 - Dec 5th, 2008 at 3:00pm
 
freediver wrote on Dec 5th, 2008 at 2:53pm:
...
Quote:
The evolution theory is scientific and falsifiability concept can be discounted because it is unscientific as we found out in this very thread.


That doesn't make sense Tallow. This is philosophy, not science. We are not doing experiments to test who is right.


But a philosophical concept can be wrong and the longer we look at this one the more it seems to be wrong.

Back to top
 

Reality is a figment of imagination
 
IP Logged
 
tallowood
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 4230
Re: Is falsifiability concept scintific?
Reply #35 - Dec 5th, 2008 at 3:04pm
 
Django wrote on Dec 5th, 2008 at 2:55pm:
tallowood wrote on Dec 5th, 2008 at 2:31pm:
The evolution theory is scientific and falsifiability concept can be discounted because it is unscientific as we found out in this very thread.


Oh please what nonsence. Seeing Popper seems to be popular here, this is what he has to say:

"When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory - that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and by the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many severe and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism. "

All scientific theories are are only one piece of contrary evidence away from being refuted. Evolution is one of the strongest, and has stood against not only the strongest scientific scrutiny but also the nitpicking of numerous religious detractors, and evidence in support of it mounts daily.



That argument of yours is rubbish because Poppers notion simply can be wrong if it is not prove it.

Back to top
 

Reality is a figment of imagination
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 35069
At my desk.
Re: Is falsifiability concept scintific?
Reply #36 - Dec 5th, 2008 at 3:10pm
 
Quote:
How do you falsify the theory that time progresses at a steady rate for a single observer at rest?


Ask Einstein.

Quote:
But a philosophical concept can be wrong and the longer we look at this one the more it seems to be wrong.


How does it seem to be wrong? Just because it excludes evolution (but not natural selection) from science? It is the only approach that successfully excludes mysticism and all the other nutcase theories.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Django
New Member
*
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 4
Re: Is falsifiability concept scintific?
Reply #37 - Dec 5th, 2008 at 3:12pm
 
tallowood wrote on Dec 5th, 2008 at 3:04pm:
Poppers notion simply can be wrong if it is not prove it.



Rather take Poppers word for it than an anon on a mailing list! So what you are saying is that biological science, and a good chunk of the earth sciences, are a mirage, and made up?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
tallowood
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 4230
Re: Is falsifiability concept scintific?
Reply #38 - Dec 5th, 2008 at 3:24pm
 
freediver wrote on Dec 5th, 2008 at 3:10pm:
Quote:
How do you falsify the theory that time progresses at a steady rate for a single observer at rest?


Ask Einstein.

Quote:
But a philosophical concept can be wrong and the longer we look at this one the more it seems to be wrong.


How does it seem to be wrong? Just because it excludes evolution (but not natural selection) from science? It is the only approach that successfully excludes mysticism and all the other nutcase theories.


Why not ask Darwin about his theory is it scientific or not?

I'm not so sure about "It is the only approach that successfully excludes mysticism and all the other nutcase theories" for example outlawing all theories will "excludes mysticism and all the other nutcase theories" as well. Of course it will be like throwing a gold away with washy water but that is what seems to be happening in this particular case though may be somewhat more selectively.  Theory of evolution is a pretty useful and practical framework for biology so why discard it on somebody's hearsay?

Back to top
 

Reality is a figment of imagination
 
IP Logged
 
tallowood
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 4230
Re: Is falsifiability concept scintific?
Reply #39 - Dec 5th, 2008 at 3:30pm
 
Django wrote on Dec 5th, 2008 at 3:12pm:
tallowood wrote on Dec 5th, 2008 at 3:04pm:
Poppers notion simply can be wrong if it is not prove it.



Rather take Poppers word for it than an anon on a mailing list! So what you are saying is that biological science, and a good chunk of the earth sciences, are a mirage, and made up?


It is obvious that you said it not me if I did and forgot please show me where I did say exactly that.
Why should I take Poppers or anybody's word for it? Give me the irrefutable proof if you can and if you can't just say so.


Back to top
 

Reality is a figment of imagination
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 35069
At my desk.
Re: Is falsifiability concept scintific?
Reply #40 - Dec 5th, 2008 at 3:30pm
 
Welcome to OzPolitic Django.

Quote:
Why not ask Darwin about his theory is it scientific or not?


I hate to break it to you Tallow, but Darwin is dead. Or did you mean the member by that name? Why would either be an authority on the philosophy of science?

Quote:
I'm not so sure about "It is the only approach that successfully excludes mysticism and all the other nutcase theories" for example outlawing all theories will "excludes mysticism and all the other nutcase theories" as well. Of course it will be like throwing a gold away with washy water but that is what seems to be happening in this particular case though may be somewhat more selectively.


What I meant was, it does that successfully, while including almost all of what is generally regarded as science and modern technology. Evolution is the exception, although the natural historians don't seem especially bothered by it.

Quote:
Theory of evolution is a pretty useful and practical framework for biology so why discard it on somebody's hearsay?


I am not calling it hearsay or suggesting it be discarded.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Django
New Member
*
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 4
Re: Is falsifiability concept scintific?
Reply #41 - Dec 5th, 2008 at 3:39pm
 
tallowood wrote on Dec 5th, 2008 at 3:30pm:
Django wrote on Dec 5th, 2008 at 3:12pm:
tallowood wrote on Dec 5th, 2008 at 3:04pm:
Poppers notion simply can be wrong if it is not prove it.



Rather take Poppers word for it than an anon on a mailing list! So what you are saying is that biological science, and a good chunk of the earth sciences, are a mirage, and made up?


It is obvious that you said it not me if I did and forgot please show me where I did say exactly that.
Why should I take Poppers or anybody's word for it? Give me the irrefutable proof if you can and if you can't just say so.



Irrefutable proof of what?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
locutius
Gold Member
*****
Offline


You can't fight in here!
It's the War Room

Posts: 1817
Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Is falsifiability concept scintific?
Reply #42 - Dec 5th, 2008 at 3:40pm
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Currently_unverifiable_theories


Quote:
Essential criteria
The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no predictions that can be observed is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is inapplicable.

In practice a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a minimum empirical basis, according to certain criteria:
It is consistent with pre-existing theory, to the extent the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense.
It is supported by many strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation, ensuring it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.
Back to top
 

I dream of a better tomorrow, where chickens can cross the road and not be questioned about their motives.
 
IP Logged
 
tallowood
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 4230
Re: Is falsifiability concept scintific?
Reply #43 - Dec 5th, 2008 at 3:42pm
 
freediver wrote on Dec 5th, 2008 at 3:30pm:
Welcome to OzPolitic Django.

Quote:
Why not ask Darwin about his theory is it scientific or not?


I hate to break it to you Tallow, but Darwin is dead. Or did you mean the member by that name? Why would either be an authority on the philosophy of science?

Quote:
I'm not so sure about "It is the only approach that successfully excludes mysticism and all the other nutcase theories" for example outlawing all theories will "excludes mysticism and all the other nutcase theories" as well. Of course it will be like throwing a gold away with washy water but that is what seems to be happening in this particular case though may be somewhat more selectively.


What I meant was, it does that successfully, while including almost all of what is generally regarded as science and modern technology. Evolution is the exception, although the natural historians don't seem especially bothered by it.

Quote:
Theory of evolution is a pretty useful and practical framework for biology so why discard it on somebody's hearsay?


I am not calling it hearsay or suggesting it be discarded.



Don't you know that Einstein is dead too or do you mean Yahoo Serious but as far as I'm aware even him last time was Ned Kelly and not Einstein. Smiley

Almost is not good enough but I suppose that Popper could expand the notion of falsifiability by creating list of exceptions or  defining an algorithm for generating an exception in exceptional cases.



Back to top
 

Reality is a figment of imagination
 
IP Logged
 
tallowood
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 4230
Re: Is falsifiability concept scintific?
Reply #44 - Dec 5th, 2008 at 3:45pm
 
Django wrote on Dec 5th, 2008 at 3:39pm:
tallowood wrote on Dec 5th, 2008 at 3:30pm:
Django wrote on Dec 5th, 2008 at 3:12pm:
tallowood wrote on Dec 5th, 2008 at 3:04pm:
Poppers notion simply can be wrong if it is not prove it.



Rather take Poppers word for it than an anon on a mailing list! So what you are saying is that biological science, and a good chunk of the earth sciences, are a mirage, and made up?


It is obvious that you said it not me if I did and forgot please show me where I did say exactly that.
Why should I take Poppers or anybody's word for it? Give me the irrefutable proof if you can and if you can't just say so.



Irrefutable proof of what?


Irrefutable proof of Popper's notion of falsifiability is correct any time and every time and will always be so.

Back to top
 

Reality is a figment of imagination
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print