Atheism, falsifiability, imagination and advancement

Amhran Nua

I'd like to share some concerns I've been feeling lately with the widespread backlash by rational atheism against irrationalism and the loonies on the religious right. I'm worried that genuine imagination, a vital element of the scientific process, is becoming collateral damage in the conflict of ideologies.

First of all, lets talk about falsifiability. This has been widely held as proof positive that religion and anything not directly provable is wrong and should be discarded post haste. The originator of the idea, Karl Popper, has many critics, some of whom made very compelling points about his take on the scientific method.

The claim "No human lives forever" is not falsifiable since it does not seem possible to prove wrong. In theory, one would have to observe a human living forever to falsify that claim.

Popper concluded that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory is "scientific" only if it is, among other things, falsifiable. That is, falsifiability is a necessary (but not sufficient) criterion for scientific ideas. Popper asserted that unfalsifiable statements are non-scientific, although not without relevance.

By applying Popper's account of scientific method, John Gray's Straw Dogs states that this would have killed the theories of Darwin and Einstein at birth. When they were first advanced, each of them was at odds with some available evidence; only later did evidence become available that gave them crucial support. And indeed, Popper for a long time spoke against the testability of natural selection. This in fact represents the history of plate tectonic theory, and hints at the inherit dangers of orthodoxy.

Popper considered falsifiability a test of whether theories are scientific, not of whether propositions that they contain or support are true, which raises questions about his take on the difference between science and reality.

In contrast, William Whewell (1794–1866) noted in his History of Inductive Science (1837) and in Philosophy of Inductive Science (1840), "invention, sagacity, genius" are required at every step in scientific method. It is not enough to base scientific method on experience alone; multiple steps are needed in scientific method, ranging from our experience to our imagination, back and forth.

Now, while entirely justifiable in its struggle against religious authorities, I'm worried that a large amount of Dawkin's support base may be making a serious error in attacking any form of blue sky thinking, mistaking it as it were for religious unscientificness. Central to this is the concept of falsifiability, as discussed above.

Without going into any further detail, I will simply say that if you come across someone discussing new ideas and exercising their imaginations, give them a little leeway to exercise that imagination, entertain new possibilities. Don't fall into the ultimately conservative trap of shouting them down in the name of received wisdom.

Dades

I'm not really seeing the link between atheism, and what seems to me to be a scientific issue. "Proof" doesn't really figure in theology, only belief.

Am interested in hearing other thoughts, though.

GO_Bear

While I agree with you that this type of thinking can often halt the progress of potentially good ideas, I take the good with the bad and remember that it also blocks any number of bad ideas.

and being a optimistic gnostic I think you answered the question

Amhran Nua wrote: »

only later did evidence become available that gave them crucial support.

Eventually all the good ideas will come out over time, when evidence is found.

It might take longer then if we had gone with that idea from the beginning but if we open our minds to any wishful unscientific idea who knows where we would end up.

MrStuffins

I think a lot of people get caught up in words and wordplay and forget about good old fashioned common sense!

You may not be able to prove that no human lives forever, but common sense sure has something to say about it!

But at the end of the day, it's not possible to falsify. I've seen an interesting documentary on the subject, take a look............

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kq4SqgxIKM0

Zombrex

Amhran Nua wrote: »

By applying Popper's account of scientific method, John Gray's Straw Dogs states that this would have killed the theories of Darwin and Einstein at birth. When they were first advanced, each of them was at odds with some available evidence; only later did evidence become available that gave them crucial support. And indeed, Popper for a long time spoke against the testability of natural selection. This in fact represents the history of plate tectonic theory, and hints at the inherit dangers of orthodoxy.

Nonsense. I haven't read Straw Dogs, but that is a misrepresentation of what fasifibility means and what it implies.

It does not "kill" hypothesis. It does not force anyone to drop hypothesis. It is a standard that the tests assessing hypothesis must pass in order to be considered accurate to a scientific level.

If an hypothesis can't pass it then the scientists can try and come up for ways it can. For example Popper challenged biologists and that is exactly what they did, they demonstrated it was falsifable. And it is very good that they need. Add it not been it would have been impossible to get the accuracy level to the point it is now.

There is a logical underpinning of why falsifibility is necessary. It is necessary if we want to increase the accuracy of theories (just look at religion, thousands of religions none of them can demonstrate they are correct). You can't get around that by simply throwing the word "orthodoxy" around.

Amhran Nua

MrStuffins wrote: »

You may not be able to prove that no human lives forever, but common sense sure has something to say about it!

First statement that might upset some: It is quite possible and indeed reasonable to suggest that some humans alive today might live forever. There goes common sense.

Wicknight wrote: »

It does not "kill" hypothesis. It does not force anyone to drop hypothesis. It is a standard that the tests assessing hypothesis must pass in order to be considered accurate to a scientific level.

So all of the discoveries made before 1934, when Popper first published his Logik der Forschung (in which ironically he spoke out against naturalism, the idea that only natural as opposed to supernatural laws and forces operate in the world, although of course that was not why he spoke out against it), were mystical psuedoscience?

Falsifiability is a useful way to polish things up, but I would not characterise it as an essential pillar to the scientific method, without which science is not being done. I mean, come up with a falsifiable hypothesis on how those stone arrowheads got in your dig site.

Einstein said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.") However, as pointed out by Carl Hempel (1905–1997) this simple view of scientific method is incomplete; the formulation of the conjecture might itself be the result of inductive reasoning.

Wicknight wrote: »

There is a logical underpinning of why falsifibility is necessary. It is necessary if we want to increase the accuracy of theories (just look at religion, thousands of religions none of them can demonstrate they are correct). You can't get around that by simply throwing the word "orthodoxy" around.

It is important, it is not neccessary. This why Popper qualified his ideas with "although there might be areas of great scientific interest outside falsifiability", or words to that effect. You can find plenty more criticisms of an overreliance on falsification here.

Thomas Kuhn’s influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions argued that scientists work in a series of paradigms, and that falsificationist methodologies would make science impossible.

"No theory ever solves all the puzzles with which it is confronted at a given time; nor are the solutions already achieved often perfect. On the contrary, it is just the incompleteness and imperfection of the existing data-theory fit that, at any given time, define many of the puzzles that characterize normal science. If any and every failure to fit were ground for theory rejection, all theories ought to be rejected at all times.

On the other hand, if only severe failure to fit justifies theory rejection, then the Popperians will require some criterion of 'improbability' or of 'degree of falsification.' In developing one they will almost certainly encounter the same network of difficulties that has haunted the advocates of the various probabilistic verification theories [that the evaluative theory cannot itself be legitimated without appeal to another evaluative theory, leading to regress]"---The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. pp. 145-6.

You cannot point a finger and say "Not falsifiable, therefore lies and fantasy!"

How and ever, what I hope to talk about here is not a raging thousand page argument about falsifiability, but rather several different discussions I have witnessed (haven't got links at the moment, sorry) where free conjecture got hammered into a corner by people who didn't really understand what they were saying, and were merely echoing back and forth ideas they had heard that sounded right to them.

Lets not have imagination become a casualty of the atheism versus religion wars.

Zombrex

Amhran Nua wrote: »

So all of the discoveries made before 1934, when Popper first published his Logik der Forschung (in which ironically he spoke out against naturalism, the idea that only natural as opposed to supernatural laws and forces operate in the world, although of course that was not why he spoke out against it), were mystical psuedoscience?

Popper didn't invent falsifibility, he simply defined it well and stressed its importance. The Greeks were devising falsifable tests 4000 years ago.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Falsifiability is a useful way to polish things up, but I would not characterise it as an essential pillar to the scientific method, without which science is not being done. I mean, come up with a falsifiable hypothesis on how those stone arrowheads got in your dig site.

Humans made them. That is a falsifiable hypothesis.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

It is important, it is not neccessary.

Necessary for what? It is necessary if you which to be able to stand over a theory as being explorable using the scientific method.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

You cannot point a finger and say "Not falsifiable, therefore lies and fantasy!"

Luck for me then that I didn't do anything of the sort.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

How and ever, what I hope to talk about here is not a raging thousand page argument about falsifiability, but rather several different discussions I have witnessed (haven't got links at the moment, sorry) where free conjecture got hammered into a corner by people who didn't really understand what they were saying, and were merely echoing back and forth ideas they had heard that sounded right to them.

Yes that can be annoying. :pac:

axer

Amhran Nua wrote: »

You cannot point a finger and say "Not falsifiable, therefore lies and fantasy!"

I cannot speak for anyone else but when it comes to things that I cannot prove are false e.g. the existence of a god(s), I will not definitely say "there are definitely no gods)" etc. I say "it is highly unlikely from what we know that god(s) exist".

I, and many others from what I am aware, look at things using probabilities e.g. the probability, imo, of god(s) existing is extremely low. The probabilty of the spaghetti monster living in my attic is extremely low.

Some people (I dont particularly) take that one step further in that because the probability of the existence of the spaghetti monster in my attic is so extremely low then they can affectively say "No spaghetti monsters live in your attic" with confidence since it is highly unlikely that they are wrong.

I dont particularly agree with taking the latter approach but at the same time I dont think it ruins imagination.

Imagination is fine, just don't try and live in your imagination since it is not necessarily the same as reality.

Amhran Nua

Wicknight wrote: »

Popper didn't invent falsifibility, he simply defined it well and stressed its importance. The Greeks were devising falsifable tests 4000 years ago.

He popularised the concept and mandated that it be considered the acid test for true science, as is reflected by your comment "It is a standard that the tests assessing hypothesis must pass in order to be considered accurate to a scientific level". Many scientists would disagree with this.

Wicknight wrote: »

Humans made them. That is a falsifiable hypothesis.

I didn't ask who made them.

Wicknight wrote: »

Necessary for what? It is necessary if you which to be able to stand over a theory as being explorable using the scientific method.

No, it's not. This is where I got the Einstein/Hempel quote.

Wicknight wrote: »

Luck for me then that I didn't do anything of the sort.

Fair enough, I only wish others would follow your good example. It is quite often the case that when the problems with falsifiability are pointed out, people change tack and admit that imaginative conjecture is not a problem, but they don't see a point in it. To which of course one can respond with the example of Boolean algebra, an idle mathematical curiosity until the advent of computers. Yes I know that's maths, but it does underline the point.

Is the worry here that atheism will lose one of its most potent weapons against theism? Are there not enough other problems resulting from theism to work with, like psychological and institutionalised abuse ad cult behaviour, the generational monopolies on public resources, the untaxable nature of its definition as "public good" under the charities acts, child abuse, the accumulation of unaccountability inherit in a system where the ultimate authority is received from an incommunicative diety rather than by popular consent, and on and on?

Clearly, I'm not in support of organised religion here.

Incidentally, Popper himself was agnostic, rather than atheist.

axer

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Incidentally, Popper himself was agnostic, rather than atheist.

Oh oh

Amhran Nua

axer wrote: »

I, and many others from what I am aware, look at things using probabilities e.g. the probability, imo, of god(s) existing is extremely low. The probabilty of the spaghetti monster living in my attic is extremely low.

Yes, but this is where Kuhn points out that falsifiability falls down. It's a black and white prospect that doesn't indulge in probabilites... "On the other hand, if only severe failure to fit justifies theory rejection, then the Popperians will require some criterion of 'improbability' or of 'degree of falsification.' In developing one they will almost certainly encounter the same network of difficulties that has haunted the advocates of the various probabilistic verification theories [that the evaluative theory cannot itself be legitimated without appeal to another evaluative theory, leading to regress]"

axer wrote: »

Some people (I dont particularly) take that one step further in that because the probability of the existence of the spaghetti monster in my attic is so extremely low then they can affectively say "No spaghetti monsters live in your attic" with confidence since it is highly unlikely that they are wrong.

It is the widespread and vociferous application of "extremely low probability and therefore wrong because there isn't an immediately available hyperlink to a detailed study by a dedicated research team" that I am seeing more and more of which is the concern.

Incidentally living in your imagination might not in and of itself be harmful, its when you try to indoctrinate and force others to live in your imagination that we have problems arising. And of course this usually has more to do with secular power grabs than religious doctrine.

Zombrex

Amhran Nua wrote: »

He popularised the concept and mandated that it be considered the acid test for true science, as is reflected by your comment "It is a standard that the tests assessing hypothesis must pass in order to be considered accurate to a scientific level". Many scientists would disagree with this.

Scientists tend to be more concerned with the confidence levels of the results of their scientific endeavors, rather than argument over what is or isn't labeled "science". That is missing the wood for the trees, and something you are more likely to find in a Creationist debate about high school science class rooms.

Falsibility is required to achieve particular levels of confidence of a theory. I would be interested in any scientist who claims otherwise.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

I didn't ask who made them.

You asked for a falsifiable hypothesis.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

No, it's not. This is where I got the Einstein/Hempel quote.

The quote doesn't contradict falsibility. If you cannot devise falsifible tests for any hypothesis you simply adjust the confidence level accordingly, which often greatly lowers the confidence level. String theory is such an example, an hypothesis and mathematical model that while very interesting is not possible to test at the moment and as such remains simply a possible explanation. String theory could be completely wrong, and until it can be properly tested we won't know. Debates over whether string theory is "true" science are rather academic. What is more important is the question of whether it is a theory we have confidence in as being accurate.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Fair enough, I only wish others would follow your good example.

Who are these "others"? They appear to not understand science very well

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Yes I know that's maths, but it does underline the point.

What point?

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Is the worry here that atheism will lose one of its most potent weapons against theism?

I wasn't aware that falsifibily was the most potent "weapon" against theism, nor can I imagine how it would be?

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Incidentally, Popper himself was agnostic, rather than atheist.

Most atheists are agnostics.

Amhran Nua

Wicknight wrote: »

Scientists tend to be more concerned with the confidence levels of the results of their scientific endeavors, rather than argument over what is or isn't labeled "science". That is missing the wood for the trees, and something you are more likely to find in a Creationist debate about high school science class rooms.

Eh you're the one who has demonstrated he didn't understand the scientific method.

Wicknight wrote: »

Falsibility is required to achieve particular levels of confidence of a theory. I would be interested in any scientist who claims otherwise.

There have been ample examples already provided of the opinions of eminent scientists on deifying falsifiability.

Wicknight wrote: »

You asked for a falsifiable hypothesis.

So why didn't you give one related to toast? It would be as relevant, and I like toast. Especially with good butter on it.

Wicknight wrote: »

The quote doesn't contradict falsibility.

It does illuminate the dangers of an over reliance on it however. Which has been rather the point all along.

Wicknight wrote: »

Who are these "others"? They appear to not understand science very well

Eh you're the one who has demonstrated he didn't understand the scientific method.

Wicknight wrote: »

What point?

I wasn't aware that falsifibily was the most potent "weapon" against theism, nor can I imagine how it would be?

Most atheists are agnostics.

Okay then. To get back to what I was saying, yes everyone should be sceptical and critical, yes everyone should be watchful for scam and con artists, of course, and everyone should demand evidence where such could be reasonably expected to exist.

The damage done by the religious is severe, and the counter-reaction is turning out to be just as severe. But don't conflate imagination and free conjecture with abusive cults, don't beat new ideas on the head with disproven points over and over, as wicknight has ably demonstrated, in the hopes that they somehow become proven.

The imagination, wild, unconstrained, is a powerful thing. Don't mistake it for delusion.

Mark Hamill

Amhran Nua wrote: »

There have been ample examples already provided of the opinions of eminent scientists on deifying falsifiability.

There is a difference between deifying something and pointing out that its fundamental to a purpose. An idea has to be falsifiable to be scientific. That doesn't mean it has to be falsifiable to be right. And it certainly doesn't mean that there aren't other requirements on the theory in order to be scientific.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

It does illuminate the dangers of an over reliance on it however. Which has been rather the point all along.

What are the dangers of relying on falsifiability as a measure of reliability? What is the alternative?

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Okay then. To get back to what I was saying, yes everyone should be sceptical and critical, yes everyone should be watchful for scam and con artists, of course, and everyone should demand evidence where such could be reasonably expected to exist.

Thats what falsifiability is for. Its a way to measure the reliability of what someone claims. If something is unfalsifiable, then it is unreliable as a piece of evidence.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

The damage done by the religious is severe, and the counter-reaction is turning out to be just as severe. But don't conflate imagination and free conjecture with abusive cults, don't beat new ideas on the head with disproven points over and over, as wicknight has ably demonstrated, in the hopes that they somehow become proven.

What disproven points?

Amhran Nua wrote: »

The imagination, wild, unconstrained, is a powerful thing. Don't mistake it for delusion.

"Wild, unconstrained imagination" sounds like a pretty good definition of delusion to me.

Zombrex

Amhran Nua wrote: »

There have been ample examples already provided of the opinions of eminent scientists on deifying falsifiability.

You have?

Amhran Nua wrote: »

So why didn't you give one related to toast? It would be as relevant, and I like toast. Especially with good butter on it.

Indeed. You seem to be slipping from your point...

Amhran Nua wrote: »

It does illuminate the dangers of an over reliance on it however.

You can't over rely on falsifibility. Falsifibility tells you if you can test something in a particular way or not. If you can't then it is logically impossible to say certain things about that theory.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Eh you're the one who has demonstrated he didn't understand the scientific method.

So you have said. Before you started discussing toast.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Okay then. To get back to what I was saying, yes everyone should be sceptical and critical, yes everyone should be watchful for scam and con artists, of course, and everyone should demand evidence where such could be reasonably expected to exist.

The damage done by the religious is severe, and the counter-reaction is turning out to be just as severe. But don't conflate imagination and free conjecture with abusive cults, don't beat new ideas on the head with disproven points over and over, as wicknight has ably demonstrated, in the hopes that they somehow become proven.

Your posts are getting increasingly rambly. Falsifibility does not "beat new ideas on the head." Falsifibility is a standard in science, if you can pass it you can say particular things about a theory, if you can't you can't.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

The imagination, wild, unconstrained, is a powerful thing. Don't mistake it for delusion.

It is may be "powerful" but in science what is important is accuracy. Falsifibility is a standard for increasing confidence in the accuracy of a theory.

Amhran Nua

Mark Hamill wrote: »

An idea has to be falsifiable to be scientific.

No, it doesn't, as already pointed out.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What are the dangers of relying on falsifiability as a measure of reliability? What is the alternative?

Eh I didn't say relying on it, I said over-relying on it.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its a way to measure the reliability of what someone claims.

No, it's a way to measure the falsifiability of what someone claims.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

"Wild, unconstrained imagination" sounds like a pretty good definition of delusion to me.

And this is why the thread belongs in the atheism & agnosticism forum. There is a lot of anger in many circles at the damage caused by the religious; this is quite justifiable. Scientific arguments are used (and abused) to further that justification. But it's spilling over to places it doesn't belong.

Lets look here for example, I stumbled across it while wandering the web:

Scientific Method help?
I need help with this problem, please.

2. Which of the following is NOT a characteristic of the scientific method: (a) logic, (b) imagination, (c) bias, or (d) evidence? Explain your answer.

Thanks!

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
(c) bias...

That is the one thing you try to avoid in science. Whether it is religious or cultural or sexual or anything else. Bias it a killer to scientific progress...

Logic is easy to identify as scientific as is evidence....

Imagination is really how leaps in scientific progress happen...

Einstein, as a child, would imagine how it was to ride on a light beam. Later he would use that imagination to develop the theory of relativity...

Einstein said:
“Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.”
“The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.”
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”

Other answers:
b) imagination
because if you imagine flying teddy bears, it cannot be scientific or become a theory as a matter of fact.

Logic is really important. Again flying teddy bear wont be logical. Fire truning paper to ashes is logical. Bias is a part of various scientific experiments that result due to falws in procedure or human error. Evidence is a must in science to prove a theory.

So we have a reasoned and well thought out and supported comment in favour of imagination, and then we have lolteddieslol. It is the latter attitude I am objecting to, and I do see a clear overlap between that and the counter-religious arguments which have been going on everywhere.

Mark Hamill

Amhran Nua wrote: »

No, it doesn't, as already pointed out.

Where? What do you think are the requirements for something to be considered scientific?

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Eh I didn't say relying on it, I said over-relying on it.

What are the dangers of over relying on it then? What are the alternatives to avoid those dangers?

Amhran Nua wrote: »

No, it's a way to measure the falsifiability of what someone claims.

And by measuring the falsifiability of a claim, we get an idea of its reliability.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

So we have a reasoned and well thought out and supported comment in favour of imagination, and then we have lolteddieslol. It is the latter attitude I am objecting to, and I do see a clear overlap between that and the counter-religious arguments which have been going on everywhere.

Imagination is only useful when evidence is supplied. Our imagination is limitless, but that doesn't mean the universe outside it is. We need ways to test our imagination for what is useful and accurate and what isn't. Falsifiability is an important part of these tests, if there is no way to tell if we are wrong in our ideas, then every single "right" may just be conformational bias. The fact that one person, when questioned in relation to science, doesn't get that, doesn't mean that a majority of atheists suffer from the same problem when dealing with theistic arguments.

Can you give examples where you think people are going too far in counter religious arguments in relation to falsifiability?

Mark Hamill

Amhran, why do you think that falsifiability precludes imagination? Doesn't creating a hypothesis in such a way as to be falsifiable require imagination?

ShooterSF

Einstein, as a child, would imagine how it was to ride on a light beam. Later he would use that imagination to develop the theory of relativity

But he never claimed one could ride on a light beam in real life. Imagination is wonderful when it resides in it's own realm and can lead to breakthroughs like the theory of relativity (that was testable) but that's a big difference to imagining something and then claiming in real life it works/exists etc.

I'd never knock someone for their imagination unless it becomes a delusion. Thankfully that never happened Einstein.

Amhran Nua

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Can you give examples where you think people are going too far in counter religious arguments in relation to falsifiability?

I think really that little discourse I quoted above sums up the situation as I see it rather well. Falsifiability is one of the primary arguments I have observed being used not just in counter religious discussions but in counter anything that's too far out of someone's comfort zone, correctly or not. This is why I have highlighted its weaknesses, as clearly as possible. It is no silver bullet. I haven't the time unfortunately to continue with that expansion, so make what you like of the points already presented.

The counter religious movement is a good thing, but there is a union between that and mister lolflyingteddies up above, and that's not a good thing. What that illustrates is not the triumph of rational thought, but rather the grinding down and confinement of the imagination. And I'd go so far as to say that's a terminal thing for our advancement as a species.

Don't make the mistake of confusing delusion with imagination.

ShooterSF wrote:

But he never claimed one could ride on a light beam in real life. Imagination is wonderful when it resides in it's own realm and can lead to breakthroughs like the theory of relativity (that was testable) but that's a big difference to imagining something and then claiming in real life it works/exists etc.

Kinda missing the point of imagination there.

Anyway I've other circuitously obscure philosophical points to make elsewhere in the world, I'll come back to the thread if I get a chance.

Zombrex

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Kinda missing the point of imagination there.

You are missing the point about falsifibility.

As Mark says if an idea cannot be falsified that means that reality where the idea is true looks exactly like reality where the idea isn't true.

As such the idea has no use because you cannot tell if it is accurate or not.

The classic example is God. A universe where God doesn't exist can look exactly like a universe where he doesn't. As such the idea is ignored by science because if you can't tell the difference then what is the point of supposing either is accurate?

This doesn't in anyway stifle imagination. What it does do is require that what ever you come up with when imagining things is testable using science.

It is some what ironic that you picked the Einstein example. Einstein imagined riding on a beam of light and then pushing off ahead of it. He supposed, following Newtonian physics, that this should increase your speed, since you were accelerating after already traveling at the speed of light.

This idea was tested and found not to be the case, which lead to the shocking discovery that the faster you travel the slower time gets.

If Einstein had just left this idea in his imagination we would all probably be still thinking that speed is infinite, that you can go faster and faster and faster.

This highlights the importance of testing in science.

pH

By applying Popper's account of scientific method, John Gray's Straw Dogs states that this would have killed the theories of Darwin and Einstein at birth. When they were first advanced, each of them was at odds with some available evidence;

I don't think that either were at odds with any evidence, even when first advanced. If there was evidence, then they'd have been still-born and wrong. They were both at odds with current thinking and a lot of accepted assumptions, but as to evidence, an actual test that showed they were wrong, I'm not aware of one, maybe you can point out the actual evidence they were at odds with?

By applying Popper's account of scientific method, John Gray's Straw Dogs states that this would have killed the theories of Darwin and Einstein at birth. When they were first advanced, each of them was at odds with some available evidence

Actually at the time Einstein was formulating his theory it was the classical model that was at odds with the evidence, as shown by experiments to verify the falsifiability of the old theories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe

Neither Darwin's or Einstien's ideas were at odds with the evidence at the time, just lacked certain bits that were later found by, you guessed it, falsifiability.

recedite

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Don't make the mistake of confusing delusion with imagination....
Anyway I've other circuitously obscure philosophical points to make elsewhere in the world, I'll come back to the thread if I get a chance.

Delusions of grandeur?
If you do get a chance to come back.....
Take note that delusion is what happens when one confuses imagination with reality.
I don't think the other posters around here are in any danger from this.

Red Hand

Falsifiability in it's basic state:

"It will rain tomorrow outside Waterstones in Cork city"-easily checked and falsifiable

"It may or may not rain tomorrow"-is this the imagination thing you're talking about?:pac:

Cause it doesn't look that attractive to me.

sponsoredwalk

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Popper concluded that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory is "scientific" only if it is, among other things, falsifiable. That is, falsifiability is a necessary (but not sufficient) criterion for scientific ideas. Popper asserted that unfalsifiable statements are non-scientific, although not without relevance.

By applying Popper's account of scientific method, John Gray's Straw Dogs states that this would have killed the theories of Darwin and Einstein at birth. When they were first advanced, each of them was at odds with some available evidence; only later did evidence become available that gave them crucial support. And indeed, Popper for a long time spoke against the testability of natural selection. This in fact represents the history of plate tectonic theory, and hints at the inherit dangers of orthodoxy.

Ignoring how relevant Popper's criteria actually is in contemporary science
we can see that Gray got his basic facts wrong. Both Darwin's & Einstein's
theories (as was explained) set up more powerful explanatory frameworks
in their respective fields, explained previously unexplainable data, explained
the current data more thoroughly, predicted much new data & continue to
do so. Particularly in the case of Einstein we can (anachronistically)
wonder why some aspects of special relativity weren't realised sooner
(which most likely would have indirectly led to much of the rest of the
theory). I think the (lack of) popularity of Maxwell's E&M & Einstein's
explicit curiousity in this subject could go some way to explaining this but
nothing was outside the bounds of science, it was because the existing
scientific knowledge was pointing in direction X that all of this was
justified.

Maybe I should stress this point, while Einstein did not know that the
constancy of the speed of light had been "tested" by Michelson & Morley
& thus had very little actual external evidence (I think he had something,
but I think it wasn't very important), I want to stress that he had a
theoretical framework to expound upon arising out of Maxwell's theory of
electricity & magnetism & because of this his ideas were grounded in
science. As for gravitational theory, he had experimental evidence
with which to test his work on, modifying his work in order to fit the data.

I don't think we need to go into Darwin, if he had left it to imagination &
hadn't spent like 20 years collecting facts & information I think things
would be very different. Still if you read about his life at that time the
ideas were being discussed & that was for a very good reason.

Still, I think everybody in this thread knows what heartstrings Grey is
trying to pluck here. Anybody arguing that science or scientists have
no imagination really hasn't learned any proper science. The way you've
construed his argument is essentially the same as the old argument
against Newton mechanistically describing the world. I'm sure you know
of Keat's poem about the rainbow & that painting of Newton measuring
a small corner of the world:

Here is an image by Blake of Newton, who at the bottom of the sea uses
his measuring instruments to measure the world. Blake shows this man
isolated in part to show how science (with its root in empiricism) actually
abandons the world of imagination
link

But I think it's seriously mischevious charicature. The fact that the author
got his basic facts wrong should be enough of an indication that his
argument is fraught with bad thinking, most likely explained by human
nature in that we are susceptible to resisting change.

So one wonders whether Grey interpreted Popper incorrectly, whether
purposely, unconsciously or just mistakenly or whether it is the Popperian
interpretation that is castrating the imagination

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Now, while entirely justifiable in its struggle against religious authorities, I'm worried that a large amount of Dawkin's support base may be making a serious error in attacking any form of blue sky thinking, mistaking it as it were for religious unscientificness. Central to this is the concept of falsifiability, as discussed above.

What you're saying makes sense, in a sense. Ignoring the Dawkin's support
base comment I understand the appeal you're making. With religion the
scrutiny it receives is entirely justifiable because religion makes definite
predictions about the real world that were (are) violently enforced as true
for many a year but are completely, utterly, shockingly, hilariously,
obfuscantorially, cucamongailly wrong... (queue the apologists). Creativity
and artistic expression are encompassed within the borders of human
nature which largely is just too complicated to be explained within a
scientific context at present. It seems to me:

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Falsifiability is one of the primary arguments I have observed being used not just in counter religious discussions but in counter anything that's too far out of someone's comfort zone, correctly or not. This is why I have highlighted its weaknesses, as clearly as possible.

that you are motivated by the concept of falsifiability being used by those
who want to quell activity outside of their comfort zone's. I'd be very
interested to read anything/anyone that is explicitly doing this because I
bet you have found people doing this. Still that doesn't generalise nor
does it invalidate the need for evidence when discussing certain things.

Seriously, I'd love to read posts/threads/books where you've seen this
taking place!

Mark Hamill

Amhran Nua wrote: »

I think really that little discourse I quoted above sums up the situation as I see it rather well. Falsifiability is one of the primary arguments I have observed being used not just in counter religious discussions but in counter anything that's too far out of someone's comfort zone, correctly or not. This is why I have highlighted its weaknesses, as clearly as possible. It is no silver bullet. I haven't the time unfortunately to continue with that expansion, so make what you like of the points already presented.

Can you give examples were falsifiability was used incorrectly. Can you give alternatives to falsifiability.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

The counter religious movement is a good thing, but there is a union between that and mister lolflyingteddies up above, and that's not a good thing. What that illustrates is not the triumph of rational thought, but rather the grinding down and confinement of the imagination. And I'd go so far as to say that's a terminal thing for our advancement as a species.

Can you give some examples of what lolflyingteddies has done in religious situations, and the explain how these can be taken as indicative of anti religious arguments as a whole (or even as enough of a majority to be concerned of)

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Don't make the mistake of confusing delusion with imagination.

Delusion is a form of uncontrolled imagination, the inability to tell the difference between reality and imagination. While its important that we dont go throwing out all imagination to avoid delusion (not that I've ever heard of anyone ever saying we should do this), its also important that we temper our imagination with measures of reliability and applicability to reality, otherwise what use is it? We can imagine all we like, but if we cant test it and gain insight or invention from it, then all we have is day dreams.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Kinda missing the point of imagination there.

Kinda missing the point of falsification. If we make something up (ie imagine it) and dont check if its true, then all we have is something made up.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Anyway I've other circuitously obscure philosophical points to make elsewhere in the world, I'll come back to the thread if I get a chance.

I have to say the cynic in me is telling me that you are someone deeply interested in philosophy but who has had some strongly held philosophical idea repeatedly contradicted, I'm guessing something religious, with calls for falsifiability and evidence and that your inability to supply either has led you to decry the notions as unimportant, that there is something wrong in others for repeatedly calling for them and not you for being unable to supply. But then again maybe I'm wrong, hopefully you will come back and correct me.