Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 6:36 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
falsifying the idea of falsification
#31
RE: falsifying the idea of falsification
(March 26, 2020 at 10:55 pm)Paleophyte Wrote:
Quote:as i pointed out the word was coined by karl popper to support his philosophy of science which all scientific discovery and study are conducted under. HE IS THE ONE WHO SAYS FALSIFICATION TO PROVE SUBJECTS NOT SCIENCE/Covered under the philosophy of science.

Philosophy of science. Not science. Philosophy.

It's true that philosophy of science is not science. 

Science works extremely well because it deals only with certain types of questions, which can be addressed in certain ways. Things we test scientifically must be investigated with empirical evidence in repeatable experiments with quantifiable results. But that doesn't mean that it's a waste of time to deal with philosophical questions also.

For example, if you want to say that science is a better way to spend your time than philosophy, that's a philosophical statement. It can't be demonstrated with a repeatable empirical quantifiable test, so it's not science. It addresses values about how best to spend our time, what kinds of results are good to get, and ultimately how it is best to live one's life. Those are all philosophical issues. So whether you like it or not, when you say that science is better than philosophy, you're doing philosophy. 

But the philosophy of science, in particular, has helped people to think about why science is good. And helped to draw the line between real science and pseudo-science. If you feel that's an important line, then what Popper wrote is good to have.

As a useful example, there's the case of Sigmund Freud. When he started he was trained as an MD and wanted to do scientific psychology. It didn't work out that way. And thanks to Popper it's easy for us to see why Freud's conclusions aren't science. It's because they aren't falsifiable. No matter what objection a person makes to Freud's theories, the true believer can always answer that the objection doesn't strike at the heart of things. They can say that people object out of a desire to avoid uncomfortable truths, and so any objection, while seeming to render Freud unbelievable, is actually vindication -- because the person objecting is seeking to protect himself. In short, there is no question which, when answered, shows Freud's theory to be wrong. This is what falsifiability means, so Freud's work isn't science. 

Having clear boundaries like this between science and pseudo-science protects and clarifies the important work that real science does.
Reply
#32
RE: falsifying the idea of falsification
[Image: icon_quote.jpg]This guy:
Wow! Do you get more and more stupid with each word you utter?

[Image: icon_quote.jpg]arewethereyet:
Ahem...have you listened to Trump?

Some people just can't help it.

Come to think of it, I've never seen drick and trump together.
Reply
#33
RE: falsifying the idea of falsification
(March 26, 2020 at 4:41 pm)chimp3 Wrote:
(March 26, 2020 at 12:08 pm)Drich Wrote: no. to claim God exist through the frame work of scripture (as this is the only way we know God exists) is called Theology. falsification is not applicable. As science is the measure of rule of the observable world. if one can not experiment and observe repeatable results the subject matter is not observable/unknowable to science. Therefore it fall to another intellectual discipline to proof a concept. in this case proof God through the discipline of theology. Again that what a call to falsification is. to see if a subject is of a scientific nature or not.

Claims of God can not be falsified, therefore it is not up to science to proof God/Science is out of it's scope, science does not have the tools to proof God if God does not fit the scientific method.

So again to ask for falsification is to disqualify science as a tool to discuss matters of God or theology.

Wrong again!
nut-huh:
Philosophy of science is a sub-field of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science. This discipline overlaps with metaphysicsontology, and epistemology, for example, when it explores the relationship between science and truth. Philosophy of science focuses on metaphysical, epistemic and semantic aspects of science. Ethical issues such as bioethics and scientific misconduct are often considered ethics or  rather than philosophy of science......

While philosophical thought pertaining to science dates back at least to the time of Aristotle, philosophy of science emerged as a distinct discipline only in the 20th century in the wake of the logical positivist movement, which aimed to formulate criteria for ensuring all philosophical statements' meaningfulness and objectively assessing them. Charles Sanders Peirce and Karl Popper moved on from positivism to establish a modern set of standards for scientific methodology. Thomas Kuhn's 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was also formative, challenging the view of scientific progress as steady, cumulative acquisition of knowledge based on a fixed method of systematic experimentation and instead arguing that any progress is relative to a "paradigm," the set of questions, concepts, and practices that define a scientific discipline in a particular historical period.[1]

(March 26, 2020 at 10:55 pm)Paleophyte Wrote:
(March 26, 2020 at 6:53 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Simply because a statement cannot be demonstrated does not necessarily mean that the statement is untrue.

No, it doesn't mean that it's untrue. It does mean that it can't be demonstrated to be untrue. Or true. It might be true or it might not but with no way to tell it's just epistemological white noise.

(March 26, 2020 at 12:28 pm)Drich Wrote: citation please.

The next words that you type.

Quote:as i pointed out the word was coined by karl popper to support his philosophy of science which all scientific discovery and study are conducted under. HE IS THE ONE WHO SAYS FALSIFICATION TO PROVE SUBJECTS NOT SCIENCE/Covered under the philosophy of science.

Philosophy of science. Not science. Philosophy.

Quote:A: I believe in fairies.
b: belief is not a scientific measure.
A:You can not prove they do not exist.
B: not with science but there maybe proof of them is another discipline history for example may have recorded fairies or something referred to as fairies but there is no physical evidence for science to study/science is not equipt to make a definitive ruling.

Except you went and defined it as unfalsifiable, so it can't be shown to be true. Not by science. Not by any field of philosophy. That's what unfalsifiable means.

Quote:i think once someone explains this too you and you finally get the implications, you will get to see what i see in how cute you all are to me when you unknowingly ask for falsification, and have no understanding how you just ended your own arguments.

Your argument is that god is irrelevant to the discussion. Isn't that cute.

what is cute is the obvious gap between what i am saying and what you are arguing... how stupid will you feel/ be when you figure out; one of your buddies like boru explains it to you i am right.

he got it right away. even thought i was stepping on my schmechel because the answer was so obvious it seem like i was complaining about science isolating it self from other intellectual disciplines.

(March 27, 2020 at 8:54 am)Belacqua Wrote:
(March 26, 2020 at 10:55 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: Philosophy of science. Not science. Philosophy.

It's true that philosophy of science is not science. 

Science works extremely well because it deals only with certain types of questions, which can be addressed in certain ways. Things we test scientifically must be investigated with empirical evidence in repeatable experiments with quantifiable results. But that doesn't mean that it's a waste of time to deal with philosophical questions also.

For example, if you want to say that science is a better way to spend your time than philosophy, that's a philosophical statement. It can't be demonstrated with a repeatable empirical quantifiable test, so it's not science. It addresses values about how best to spend our time, what kinds of results are good to get, and ultimately how it is best to live one's life. Those are all philosophical issues. So whether you like it or not, when you say that science is better than philosophy, you're doing philosophy. 

But the philosophy of science, in particular, has helped people to think about why science is good. And helped to draw the line between real science and pseudo-science. If you feel that's an important line, then what Popper wrote is good to have.

As a useful example, there's the case of Sigmund Freud. When he started he was trained as an MD and wanted to do scientific psychology. It didn't work out that way. And thanks to Popper it's easy for us to see why Freud's conclusions aren't science. It's because they aren't falsifiable. No matter what objection a person makes to Freud's theories, the true believer can always answer that the objection doesn't strike at the heart of things. They can say that people object out of a desire to avoid uncomfortable truths, and so any objection, while seeming to render Freud unbelievable, is actually vindication -- because the person objecting is seeking to protect himself. In short, there is no question which, when answered, shows Freud's theory to be wrong. This is what falsifiability means, so Freud's work isn't science. 

Having clear boundaries like this between science and pseudo-science protects and clarifies the important work that real science does.

Clap
I always was a big fan of quantum leap and enterprise.

(March 27, 2020 at 2:47 pm)no one Wrote: [Image: icon_quote.jpg]This guy:
Wow! Do you get more and more stupid with each word you utter?

[Image: icon_quote.jpg]arewethereyet:
Ahem...have you listened to Trump?

Some people just can't help it.

Come to think of it, I've never seen drick and trump together.

said no one of consequence.
Reply
#34
RE: falsifying the idea of falsification
It's taken me two days and I still can't parse Drich the bitch' post.

You wouldn't have any rock crack to help with that?
"For the only way to eternal glory is a life lived in service of our Lord, FSM; Verily it is FSM who is the perfect being the name higher than all names, king of all kings and will bestow upon us all, one day, The great reclaiming"  -The Prophet Boiardi-

      Conservative trigger warning.
[Image: s-l640.jpg]
                                                                                         
Reply
#35
RE: falsifying the idea of falsification
(March 27, 2020 at 3:45 pm)Drich Wrote:
(March 26, 2020 at 4:41 pm)chimp3 Wrote: Wrong again!
nut-huh:
Philosophy of science is a sub-field of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science. This discipline overlaps with metaphysicsontology, and epistemology, for example, when it explores the relationship between science and truth. Philosophy of science focuses on metaphysical, epistemic and semantic aspects of science. Ethical issues such as bioethics and scientific misconduct are often considered ethics or  rather than philosophy of science......

While philosophical thought pertaining to science dates back at least to the time of Aristotle, philosophy of science emerged as a distinct discipline only in the 20th century in the wake of the logical positivist movement, which aimed to formulate criteria for ensuring all philosophical statements' meaningfulness and objectively assessing them. Charles Sanders Peirce and Karl Popper moved on from positivism to establish a modern set of standards for scientific methodology. Thomas Kuhn's 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was also formative, challenging the view of scientific progress as steady, cumulative acquisition of knowledge based on a fixed method of systematic experimentation and instead arguing that any progress is relative to a "paradigm," the set of questions, concepts, and practices that define a scientific discipline in a particular historical period.[1]
I am familiar with Karl Popper. I stand by my statement that no special pleading is granted to the religious. A god's existence is a claim about reality. A claim about a "seperate" reality or a "supernatural" reality is still a claim about reality. Drich, you are repeating yourself and so am I! Also, philosophy has never discovered a truth about physical reality. Only science has.
God thinks it's fun to confuse primates. Larsen's God!






Reply
#36
RE: falsifying the idea of falsification
(March 27, 2020 at 6:36 pm)chimp3 Wrote: Also, philosophy has never discovered a truth about physical reality. Only science has.

This is a philosophical statement.
Reply
#37
RE: falsifying the idea of falsification
(March 27, 2020 at 7:25 pm)Belacqua Wrote:
(March 27, 2020 at 6:36 pm)chimp3 Wrote: Also, philosophy has never discovered a truth about physical reality. Only science has.

This is a philosophical statement.

What can I say?
God thinks it's fun to confuse primates. Larsen's God!






Reply
#38
RE: falsifying the idea of falsification
(March 27, 2020 at 9:02 pm)chimp3 Wrote:
(March 27, 2020 at 7:25 pm)Belacqua Wrote: This is a philosophical statement.

What can I say?

Admit it! You like doing philosophy!
Reply
#39
RE: falsifying the idea of falsification
(March 27, 2020 at 9:05 pm)Belacqua Wrote:
(March 27, 2020 at 9:02 pm)chimp3 Wrote: What can I say?

Admit it! You like doing philosophy!

Only Amateur Philosophy! Or Roaring Drunk Philosophy!
God thinks it's fun to confuse primates. Larsen's God!






Reply
#40
RE: falsifying the idea of falsification
(March 26, 2020 at 7:38 am)Belacqua Wrote: I happen not to believe that aliens crashed at Roswell. The fact that it isn't falsifiable, though, doesn't mean people will certainly lack all reason to believe it.

Well there was supposed to be a crash and physical evidence left behind that was covered up by the "man".
If the evidence for the crash turns out to be wrong and the physical evidence proves to be something else then it would be falsifiable.

Enough unfettered research could falsify the claim is what I'm saying.

(March 26, 2020 at 7:38 am)Belacqua Wrote: There may be mountains of circumstantial evidence -- enough to persuade even a reasonable person. And even if you think that in the Roswell case there isn't enough evidence, there may be in other cases. 

Each claim has to be taken on its own merits and investigated if one had sufficient evidence then it would be taken seriously.

(March 26, 2020 at 7:38 am)Belacqua Wrote: Metaphysical statements operate this way, too. The existence of eternal transcendent intelligibles may be unfalsifiable, but millennia of logical argument have persuaded some people. It's not a question for science, but that doesn't mean it's not something you can have a reasonable debate about, and something you may form [tentative] beliefs about.

Arguments are not evidence.



You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.

Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.




 








Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
Tongue I have an idea! Tea Earl Grey Hot 57 23685 April 26, 2018 at 5:15 am
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  Where do Christians get this idea that atheists defend Islam GoHalos1993 39 11143 December 8, 2015 at 8:44 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
  fundamentalist idea of hell drfuzzy 34 8017 August 27, 2015 at 9:10 am
Last Post: Drich
  General questions about the Christian idea of God and love Mudhammam 148 26267 October 2, 2014 at 9:16 am
Last Post: Tonus
  The idea of God BrokenQuill92 4 1240 February 22, 2014 at 3:23 pm
Last Post: truthBtold
  The idea of God always existing Voltair 200 77370 December 18, 2012 at 4:33 pm
Last Post: pocaracas
  Hell - Where is the idea of justice? Voltair 201 71562 November 27, 2011 at 12:03 pm
Last Post: IATIA
  Idea for a prank everythingafter 12 4147 March 7, 2011 at 5:17 pm
Last Post: Faith No More



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)