Falsifiability...

stormkeeper

I stumbled across this article on Wikipedia a while back, and thought it very much applied to this forum: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Now, I'm not sure if it's been discussed, but I figured I'd bring it up for people to discuss, as I remember the countless times cynics have been saying that believes have to prove ghosts exist, whareas they don't have to prove a thing. I'm actually reading it now, so I'll need some time to form a proper opinion of the article.

Although that said, this paragraph stood out to me in particular: For example, "The Earth has been visited by little green men" is unfalsifiable, since no amount of observation could ever demonstrate its falsehood. Not being able to locate any little green men does not mean that there are none, since it is always possible that we simply have not looked in the right place. However, its negation "The Earth has not been visited by little green men" is falsifiable, by the presentation of just one little green visitor.

Red Hand

Yep, that's right, every theory needs to be falsifiable in order to be a theory. For instance, the statement "It always rains on Wednesdays" is a falsifiable statement-you can easily verify as to whether or not it actually happens.

The problem with the Paranormal/Religions is that they exist in a sort of loop. One cannot prove the existence of paranormal phenomena, nor can one prove that it doesn't exist. It comes down to belief and faith which has little to do with falsifiability.

Nevyn

I disagree certaint hings can be measured adn proved like cold spots, but explaining them is another matter.

stormkeeper

I guess that would most likely mean that there's both elements of belief as well as elements of falsifiability with regards to the paranormal field. Admittedly, I do think there's more proof that the paranormal exists than 'God', though seeing as I'm an Agnostic, I do acknowledge some form of higher power too, although I don't percieve this to be what Christians believe to be 'God', but that's a subjective statement rather than objective.


(We can branch this out with regards to falsifiability regarding religious/spiritual beliefs too if there's a relevance)

Zillah

Thaedydal wrote:

I disagree certaint hings can be measured adn proved like cold spots, but explaining them is another matter.

Cold spots aren't a theory, they're a phenomenon. A theory is something that brings facts together and tries to explain how they work. Saying that a cold spot is an area where a ghost has drawn the heat energy out of it to power its ability to move things is approaching a theory. Though, as said, such a notion isn't falsifiable, and its loaded with assumptions, so its not really a theory.

Its one of the reasons that the scientific community looks down on paranormal investigations, they usually only seem scientific, but the process itself is actually very bad science.

stormkeeper

Hmm... looks like I've opened up a can of worms here!

Edit: Just saw this bit about religion:

If God is conceived of as an unobservable transcendental being, then one could not disprove his existence by observation. The assertion 'God exists' would be unfalsifiable because of the nature of God. On the other hand, the assertion 'God does not exist' is falsifiable. This assertion can be falsifiable by demonstrating the existence of God.

It remains quite consistent for a theist to agree that the existence of God is unfalsifiable, and that the proposition 'God exists' is not scientific, but is a matter of faith alone. Theists may also claim to have presentable evidence that verifies the existence of God. This is, of course, a matter of interest for anyone who places stock in witnesses who claim to have seen God. However, arguments relating to alleged actions and eye-witness accounts, rather than to the existence of God, may be falsifiable.

Zillah

stormkeeper wrote:

Admittedly, I do think there's more proof that the paranormal exists than 'God'

Science says nothing at all about the existence of God, except perhaps that he is unneccessary as an explanation for the universe we observe. The reason it says nothing about God is because the theory of God's existence as the supernatural creator of the universe is unfalsifiable, just like banshees, trolls and spirits. Its not that these things are neccessarily wrong or untrue, but from a scientific point of view they're useless, we can't do anything productive with a theory that lacks falsifiability.

stormkeeper

Zillah wrote:

Science says nothing at all about the existence of God, except perhaps that he is unneccessary as an explanation for the universe we observe. The reason it says nothing about God is because the theory of God's existence as the supernatural creator of the universe is unfalsifiable, just like banshees, trolls and spirits. Its not that these things are neccessarily wrong or untrue, but from a scientific point of view they're useless, we can't do anything productive with a theory that lacks falsifiability.

That makes sense... so in essence, because it cannot be proved that something does/doesn't or did/didn't exist at some point, science isn't interested in knowing about it? Thing is though, new species of animal are being discovered all the time, and at one point it was thought they didn't exist.

With this in mind, would it not be falsifiable to say that everything on this planet has been discovered, as it has proven to be false before with the discovery of new things, including, as mentioned earlier, animals.

Zombrex

stormkeeper wrote:

That makes sense... so in essence, because it cannot be proved that something does/doesn't or did/didn't exist at some point, science isn't interested in knowing about it?

Not exactly.

Its not that science (ie humans) aren't interested in knowing about it, it is that there is no way of understanding it properly in any meaningful way. We would just be guessing as to what is happening, with no way of verifying if our theories (models of what we think is happening) are actually accurately modeling what is happening. Which from a scientific point of view is rather useless, as Zillah says.

Falsifiability is a method of testing that your model (theory) of a natural phenomena is accurate, or more specifically testing that it isn't accurate, which is equally important. It isn't the only one, you also use observation, prediction etc etc. But a good scientist will be constantly looking for ways to show his/her theory is wrong, ways to falsify the theory, because if it is wrong then it is useless and should be discarded. The more falsifiability tests that a theory withstands the more accurate it is likely to be at modeling the phenomena.

stormkeeper wrote:

With this in mind, would it not be falsifiable to say that everything on this planet has been discovered, as it has proven to be false before with the discovery of new things, including, as mentioned earlier, animals.

It would be falsifiable to say that, but I doubt any scientist would be silly enough to propose that we have discovered every species on Earth. As you say such a statement is demonstrated to be false pretty much every day as we discover more and move creatures.

Zillah

stormkeeper wrote:

so in essence, because it cannot be proved that something does/doesn't or did/didn't exist at some point, science isn't interested in knowing about it?

No no no! If someone claims that there are such things as, say "Flying invisible/intangible unicorns" science finds that fascinating and would love to learn how it works and where it came from etc. But we cannot ever say "We have proven such an animal does not exist", even if it doesn't exist, because its invisible and intangible. This shows that science has to reject theories that can't be proven false otherwise we'd have a billion old theories sitting around, gathering dust and proving themselves to be completely useless. And every single person who came up with any idea about how things work would have to be listened to and taken seriously, which would essentially make science completely useless.

Also, I'll point out that a species we haven't discovered yet does not count as "cannot be proved", it counts as "not proved yet". There's a very important difference. We're talking on the fundamental level here. Its not "cannot be proved right now with the evidence we have", it has to be something that can never change, like the unicorn example above; you can never ever prove that an invisible and intangible unicorn does or does not exist.

Thing is though, new species of animal are being discovered all the time, and at one point it was thought they didn't exist.

Thats not quite true. The scientific community has never said "The following species do not exist..." We assume that the infinite amount of possible species don't exist until we have evidence for them, but its more like being a sceptical agnostic rather than a hardline atheist.

With this in mind, would it not be falsifiable to say that everything on this planet has been discovered, as it has proven to be false before with the discovery of new things, including, as mentioned earlier, animals.

Yup, that would be falsifiable and a valid scientific hypothesis*. But it'd be proven wrong almost straight away. Bear in mind, falsifiability doesn't make something true, its a basic requirement that a theory must have before science will even look at it.

(*Getting into the nitty gritty now. A hypothesis is essentially like a simple theory. You look at a bit of evidence and come up with an idea that explains that evidence. If a hypothesis shows itself to stand to lots and lots of criticism and matches up with all the data we have available then it becomes a "theory". Its important to note that a "theory" in scientific terms is not the same as the day-today meaning. Normally is means "a hunch" or an "idea", in science its a well tested explanation for facts. "Atomic Theory" will never become "Atomic Fact", for instance. )

stormkeeper

I understand you both now to a degree, though with a bit more time to take things in, I think I'll be able to better understand the concept. At least I can say I've learnt something new over the past couple of days, thanks

Zillah

It is a lot to take in all at once to be sure.

stormkeeper

Zillah wrote:

It is a lot to take in all at once to be sure.

Yeah, and I take time to fully take in everything, although I understand basic concepts almost right away... I may use somewhat silly examples though...