falsifying the idea of falsification

[Drich]

What's at issue with falsifiability is not whether we practically will be able to find such a thing. It's that in principle the statement could be proven wrong.

Likewise no serious person expects the theory of evolution to be falsified. It is as proven as something can be. But we know in principle how it could be falsified -- by finding a rabbit from the Precambrian era. If it is possible in principle to show something is false, it's falsifiable.

I don't doubt that researchers have used sonar and submarines and everything else to search Loch Ness. At this point it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that there's no monster. 

This is not what scientists mean by the term "falsifiable." 

To be falsifiable, there would have to be one piece of evidence which conclusively shows that there is no monster. And that's not what happened.

For the Loch Ness monster to be falsifiable, there only needs to be one piece of evidence which could prove it false.  It's a falsifiable claim - I'd say there are plenty of pieces of such evidence...but a person arguing otherwise is only arguing that these pieces of evidence aren't -those- pieces of evidence.

At it's core, though..it's the claim that a dragon exists at the bottom of a lake.  I guess falsification applies for monuments to boru and to dragons - but not for god.

again not the point. the terms is not about the act of doing. or showing how a particular fact was proven false, but the idea that if other evidence arises can it then be proven false? or is there always an unknowable variable. if there is always an unquantifiable variable in a theory the philosophy of science particularly falsifiability says the subject is not a scientific matter. IE Science is not equipped to study or answer this question.

Because there are unlimited reasons why none of our efforts on nessy work, means science/scientific method is not the tool need to answer this question. this is another field of study which may include science, but pure science is not applicable here. which is what Popper was trying to do. separate the garbage science that could not be vetted by the scientific method, from the BS science that was trying to be assimilated into a scientific field (as a means for funding pet projects like the search for loch ness monster, alchemy, "theology," Phrenology ect..]

[The Grand Nudger]

Falsification isn't about unknowable variables you cretin. You think god made mud men and flooded the earth. That's falsifiable. It never happened. It never happened...full stop.

Your god is falsifiable...even if you insist that it hasn't been falsified and that a meat fairy really did want a butterfly garden.

Sit down - adults are talking

[Ranjr]

Except in a multiverse there an infinite number of worlds where the inscription does exist (assuming the multiverse hypothesis to be correct).

How is the many worlds interpretation falsifiable?  How could we measure a change that began in one reality but results in two different realities?  MWI has led to great stories and movies, but I call horsecock on it being science.

[The Grand Nudger]

The many worlds interpretation is falsifiable...because we could find that there's just the one.

There is no such thing as "two realities". There is only one reality, under which all of the multiple many worlds are subject. Reality is whatever may be real. If there are mutliple universe, they are a part of reality. Just the one.

[Ranjr]

You know what I mean by reality in this discussion.  No need to ankle bite.

We could find a better explanation for wave function collapse, but would that falsify the MWI?  I usually go with:  If MWI is true, there is a reality where both position and momentum are describable in the absence of an observer.  How do we know this one isn't it?

[The Grand Nudger]

I do, sure, but it is important to remember that falsified and falsifiable are not the same thing. If any claim makes a claim such that it could be falsified, it's falsifiable - even if it hasn't been falsified.

Modern synth, for example, is falsifiable. Though it's never been falsified.

Multiple worlds is falsifiable. We don't need to know which of the multiple worlds this world is, if multiple words are, to acknowledge that the multiple worlds interpretation is falsifiable. This, even if we think it hasn't been falsified and is, in fact, true. The problem with "god" is not that it's not falsifiable...but that it is, and has been falsified...but people don't actually give a shit about that fact. There was no creation. There was no flood. There was no exodus. There was no resurrection. The god of creation and floods and letting my people go and pious zombies is and has been falsified.

They still believe. Drich is an idiot. He doesn't know what falsification is or what makes something falsifiable, or unfalsifiable . We can't help him...but we don't need to compound his misery. MWI is falsifiable. His god is falsifiable. Falsifiability has not been falsified, and he has taken no effort to do so, despite how easy it would be in concept.

Human beings are bad at the unfalsifiable. Doubly so when we attempt to use reason, a fundamentally falsifiable product - to arrive at conclusions. The christer nutball is pissed because he's realized that his silly religion fails a very important logical criterion that other competing claims do not fail.

[Agnostico]

https://youtu.be/uKEdfAsYNSY

the title pretty much says it. with this chinese flu killing trillions I'm been writing scripts and making videos.

This one is one i think everyone who ever called for falsification needs to hear and understand.

because the term falsification and how it is used in the philosophy of science is being used in the most incorrect in fact the opposite way it was intended to be used for.

Many use it as a panic stop button in any theological argument that is getting out of hand. "well oh'yeah your idea can't be falsified."

The correct response to that is not discussing a scientific theory is , so what.

Because all the idea of falsification is or means is it is not provable through the scientific method. IE not science but pseudoscience/NOT-science. That is what Karl popper wanted and was doing when he wrote the doctrine of modern scientific philosophy. He was narrowing the field of scientific study to three major disciplines which branch out into many many other fields.. but bottom line was his falsifiable argument was intended to separate the field of science from other intellectual tools in your tool box. he unlike you 'smart people today' did not want to run everything through science as a vetting process, but only vet pure scientific study.

for you short bussers this means Falsification is not a term than can correctly be used or applied to idea theory or theological discussion.

want any more, it's in the video. want more than that I can provide a few links but fyi there is alot of reading took two weeks to compile all of this info. if you want more information google it.

I will not be debating the philosophy of science as that is a matter of your ignorance or belief in modern science, and i will not be arguing how this term was intended verse your personal use. again that is a ignorance based on your belief in modern science.

Your a bit mixed up there buddy, let me help.

We all believe in science including yourself. Hard science like chemistry, thermodynamics, motion physics, medicine.
We all rely on these sciences every day. They are applied or practical sciences.

What you are skeptical with is soft science. Theory of evolution, cosmology, climate change.
These are theoretical sciences. They operate on a far lower standard of evidence and are often driven by peoples beliefs.

Karl Popper is one of my favorite sciences. 
His "philosophy of science" is more of a process in determining real science from pseudoscience, i think he may have even invented that term

He basically says that if a claim cannot be tested (falsifiable) then it isn't scientific
We cannot test if there is or isn't a God, therefore it's not scientific to claim either

Big Popper was a huge critic of the theory of evolution his whole life. He called it a pseudoscience and tautology among other things
Only later before he died did he say he accepted the theory though he never believed it or considered it to be scientific

ToE is a hypothesis or a philosophical theory, not a scientific one.

I encourage u to look at the subject a bit deeper. 
Karl Popper really developed this skeptical way of approaching science which has really been lost, allowing several pseudosciences to emerge

An excellent identifier of a possible pseudoscience is if there is disagreement that spans over a decade or two

[Ranjr]

We just wrote around each other but that's fine.  Falsifiabilty must be conceived in a possible way.  So, how could we falsify many worlds if an observer only exists in one and can't take a measurement in another?  You say we could find there is only one world.  I ask, how can we eliminate the possibility we live in one of many worlds where position and momentum are measurable without an observer, where others cannot?  Hopefully a real physicist will step in and answer.  I'm just a fanboy who read some books and a shitload of the Stanford Encyclopedia.

Yes.  Drich is a nutjob who can't accept that the tenets of his religion are untenable.  But I agree with him and others here that philosophy of science is not science.

[Belacqua]

[Agnostico]