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 5054 times)
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 34744
At my desk.
Re: Is falsifiability concept scintific?
Reply #45 - Dec 5th, 2008 at 3:46pm
 
locutius wrote on 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.


That seems to support my position.
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 #46 - Dec 5th, 2008 at 3:54pm
 
tallowood wrote on Dec 5th, 2008 at 3:45pm:
Irrefutable proof of Popper's notion of falsifiability is correct any time and every time and will always be so.



Sorry I was replying to the assertion that Evolution is somehow unscientific. I've no real interest in debating Popper's notion of falsifiability. Smiley
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
tallowood
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 4230
Re: Is falsifiability concept scintific?
Reply #47 - Dec 5th, 2008 at 4:00pm
 
Django wrote on Dec 5th, 2008 at 3:54pm:
tallowood wrote on Dec 5th, 2008 at 3:45pm:
Irrefutable proof of Popper's notion of falsifiability is correct any time and every time and will always be so.



Sorry I was replying to the assertion that Evolution is somehow unscientific. I've no real interest in debating Popper's notion of falsifiability. Smiley



It's OK. Actually this topic is about "falsifiability concept" while evolution is here as well as probably in another few threads.  Smiley
Back to top
 

Reality is a figment of imagination
 
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 #48 - Dec 5th, 2008 at 4:03pm
 
freediver wrote on Dec 5th, 2008 at 2:53pm:

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.


Yes, and like I said 27 years ago. I try not to be dumb but sometimes I can be.

freediver wrote on Dec 5th, 2008 at 2:53pm:
Quote:
Firstly maybe Popper got it wrong!


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


And maybe his process of methodology is as equally rock solid as the unexpected completeness of the TRUTH of evolution. Thus both being unfalsifiable share a unique status, until another mind of Kant's calibre arrives on the scene. The Irresistable force meeting the immovable object.

freediver wrote on Dec 5th, 2008 at 2:53pm:
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:
It may not be a scientific theory, but it is a philosophical theory. It is testible by logic I assume.

[quote author=freediver link=1228280534/30#30 date=1228452821]
[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:
Why assume that a field of knowledge can't turn the definition of science on it's head. It seems that you are giving credence to a Definition that should also be forthcoming to a Description.

[quote author=freediver link=1228280534/30#30 date=1228452821]
[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.


I think I have asked this before. What is concept called (if not theory) when it science is not up to the challange of testing it, and falsifying it but that it has a huge body of real world evidence as opposed to conjectural science such as string theory.

Again. I am talking about Evolution the concept as a scientific TRUTH. The mechanisms involved in explaining the process or mechanics of Evolution are theories. Theories that involve real science and testing and prediction where possible.

Back to top
 

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


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 34744
At my desk.
Re: Is falsifiability concept scintific?
Reply #49 - Dec 5th, 2008 at 5:05pm
 
Quote:
It may not be a scientific theory, but it is a philosophical theory. It is testible by logic I assume.


Not exactly. It is ultimately a semantic issue - what is science. This is answered by 'judging a tree by it's fruit'. You consider difference 'definitions' of science, and see how well they reflect both the reality of the practice of science as well as the preception of science. My approach is the only one that captures the essence of science, while preventing a flood of mysticism, crackpotism and various clearly unscientific pursuits in the door. The claim that evolution is scientific is not supported by practicing academic evolutionists themselves, who prefer to be called natural historians. Rather, it is a tactic by those involved in a senseless battle between evolution and creationism, to try to put evolution out of reach. Ironically, in doing so, they make it very hard to eliminate as unscientific other theories such as intelligent design (or freediver's theory of sufficient genetic potential). The result is a huge academic mess, thrust upon researchers by extremists who see the various fields of study as pawns in an epic battle.

Quote:
Why assume that a field of knowledge can't turn the definition of science on it's head.


Because it is a definitional identity.

Quote:
It seems that you are giving credence to a Definition that should also be forthcoming to a Description.


Huh?

Quote:
What is concept called (if not theory) when it science is not up to the challange of testing it


I didn't say it wasn't a theory. I said it wasn't scientific. It is a historical theory.

Quote:
Again. I am talking about Evolution the concept as a scientific TRUTH.


There is no such thing as scientific truth. Genuine scientists would never be so arrogant as to claim to have reached truth.

Quote:
The mechanisms involved in explaining the process or mechanics of Evolution are theories. Theories that involve real science and testing and prediction where possible.


Natural selection is scientific. The rest isn't.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print