@TheGetano1 For the love of my flying spaghetti monster just provide evidence against evolution. For example a poodle next to a t-rex. If you find anything that shows evidence against common ancestry and change over time you will become one wealthy person and the winner of a nobel prize. It doesn't matter what people believed, it is whether or not the theory fits the facts. Genesis doesn't fit those facts.
@TheGetano1 Planets aren't exactly part of the process of evolution, since they aren't alive. Same goes for most human creations. There are domestic animals and plants - bananas, peas, dogs, cats, born through artificial selection. If you leave a pack of dogs into the wilderness for multiple generations, then the resulting feral dogs will look less fancy and more adapted to their surrounding environment due to natural selection that weeds out the ones that were unfit for life in the wilderness.
The getano! Fantastic! At last you can truly believe that the image of god that we possess plus merely a creation of our own minds! Yes creation is evident! But only in our minds, the more of reality we uncover the less we need to bother our creativeness with such things,, I'm glad that you at least admit that the bible is just a Human creation, I agree.
"Random mutations consistently destroy information." P. 15; "Selection cannot rescue the genome." P. 69; "Mutation / selection cannot even create a single gene." P. 123; "All evidence points to human genetic degradation." P.143 - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Cornell U. Genetics Professor John Sanford. He holds 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. He is truly an expert on the subject of mutations and natural selection. Evolution is a fairy tale for adults.
Revelation 10:11 And they say to me(John), "You must prophesy again with regard to peoples and nations and tongues and many kings."
Is John one of the witnesses?
Check out my favs, especially the one about the stars found in the bible. Pics in those videos of the Sun Moon and Stars are authentic and the end time is drawing. The stars seem to be 11 then 12 and then definitely7. Check out these symbols and signs from heaven.
showing god did it is not good enough. It never has been, and never will be. No matter how long it takes. the Greeks didn't know what we do, and we don't know what the future holds. unless we stop at god done it. Our grand kids and so on will probably look at us as having gone through the last of the creation god done it type people.
This method of science strives to improve our knowledge, rather than stagnate. Even religious people must abide by this general rule simply by looking at history, the time span of the earth and what the various religious texts claim.
Verification basically proves something right and then there is no further argument, there couldn't be, because the very nature of verification is that a "truth" is found. But history have taught us that this is simply not the case. Great geniouses have been proven wrong. or at least not fully right, throughout the ages, but falsification always leaves the back door open for improvement. Modern science does not deal in absolutes. There is no right and wrong, there is only what is likely.
Basically the very foundation of our scientific paradigm, which is the best we know as of yet, is that falsification dominates over verification. This has been scientifical law since Francis Bacon, and there is a good reason.
Verifying something is the "easy way out", where something verified would then be unrefutable, becasuse it is verified, falsification always leaves the door open for new ideas, new advances, new steps forward in science and there is a very logical resaon for this.
It's important to understand that there is a BIG, BIG difference between science and belief systems. Scientific laws and theories are tools used to solve problems. Religions are things you believe in. Evolution is NOT something you believe in. It is a tool used to solve problems... like your hammer. You don't believe in your hammer, you use it to solve problems.
how come it is that we cannot prove but we can disprove? the topic of carl popper's career, who's dead now. the logic format of modus ponens is not symetric, it goes one way...from observation we build theory, if we explan with theory the observations, then it is circular, (of course it explains the concerned observation!!!). but because modus ponens is not symetric, we can falsify theories with oberservations that contradict theories....and much more from popper's trilogy
@unsatura "how come it is that we cannot prove but we can disprove?"
Because proof is an absolute. We cannot prove we are really where we think we are (we might aswell be in the matrix for all we know). Evidence is the best we can do because of our limitations as a feeble human species. Proof is only for mathematics. 1+1 is always 2 no matter what you do (aslong as you know how to count that is). If science dealt with proofs then it couldn't ever be adapted in light of new better evidence.
i wonder if low amounts of intelect is what fuels ignorance. based on my observation is so. since people lack the brain capacity they try to find answers that can fit in their simplistic mind sets. So they create there own answers. Then we are judged by science. You know there is such thing as pseudscience. So just like there are good and bad christians there are stupid and smart ones. It applies to every organization. There are basic principals to everything you cant change the law
Yes that is true. Even so we must try to make others coperate so that we can advance many aspects of the human life.
I don't expect there to be much equality in the future . Personally I understand that maybe having a higher intelect can be an inherited trait.But from what i have seen many problems even scientifical statistics can be made by reasoning and comparison/contrast. Yet many people have lack common sense. It sadeness me to know more then the general public at 14.
It is only apparent that Ptolemy was falsified and Copernicus refined from the perspective of an extrasolar observer. Under a ptolemaic system, you can predict planetary motions in just fine. Of course the solar system is not a solid sphere, with outermost spherical shells grinding over the inner, but from our perspective, the calculations work out very well.
But that is useless from the perspective of debate, right?
Going back, I don't agree with how you classify the change from Ptolemaic to Heliocentric, from UG to relativity, in the broadest scope. I don't see a huge difference between an earth centered view of the solar system and a helio centric, well not large enough to be absolute. As in, the ptolemaic system was falsified but the helio centric was simply refined.
I agree then, that reasoning alone cannot decide exactly which assumption has been falsified. In general, Statistical Hypothesis Testing seems a good place to start...
Well, i've finally taken the time to even _skim_ the wikipedia article on confirmation holism. I was both extremely pleased that it involved a definition of a theory quite similar to mine, defining them as logical statements comprised of hypotheses, and that I believe I have finally come to grasp your point.
I see now how it logically follows that theories cannot be falsified solely with "reference to evidence." The article says that Popper, of course credited with developing the idea of falsifiability, acknowledged that given this "underdetermination," it is possible to make a theory fit any set of experimental data if series of specific changes are repeatedly applied to the actual theory.
When a theory like Universal Gravitation incorrectly predicts the motion of any planet, like Uranus, is the theory false? Or are the observations incorrect, and thus any one of the innumerable dependant small theories?
And, you are right, Einstein's model is inaccurate in certain situations.
When a person uses his model, he assumes that only newton's model including relativistic effects and spacetime curvature, etc, apply.
It is true that both Newton's and Einstein's theory are not both comprised of a single statement, universal, which is either true or false. A theory is falsifiable if it can be shown to be inaccurate, or wrong, in a setting. If it has been, then it has been falsified, in that setting.
Technically, both Newton and Einstein are inaccurate in ALL situations. It is a matter of degree of inaccuracy. The fact that both get so close to not only the same answer, but the one verified by expirimentation, makes neither falsified.
Add to this the concept of confirmation holism and you can see how "other factors we didn't consider" do not negate the validity of the core theory.
UG can be tested all day long with agreeable results, this is why it's not falsified.
In which case, I would inquire to know how you define "falsified."
It seems as though you're confusing the definition of falsifiability which is applied specifically to basic, and of course universal, logical statements.
wikipedia says:
Like how the statement "All men are mortal" is not falsifiable, for no finite amount of experimentation can verify that at least one man, somewhere, can live forever?
Whereas "All men are immortal" is falsifiable for even one dead man makes the statement false?
....with a criteria for falsification that can be applied to a theory as encompassing as UG.
There is no clear definition of falsifiability for such theories, In which case I would say simply that a theory is falsifiable if it can be shown to be more false. If it can be demonstrated to be false in a different manner and scope than before.
As science advances, the ways and extent to which old theories are false is shown, more and more.
If a theory is false in some scenarios, and true in others, the concept of conformational holism requires one to ask what is different in the two scenarios? A single theory cannot be tested by itself, there are other forces at work.
The wiki on that topic has UG and it's inability to predict the motion of Uranus as a good example.
Again, it was #2 and the realization that Mercury mass varied quite a bit due to the proximity of the Sun.
What was falsified in that case was the theory that mass (and time) is a fixed property of an object, not UG itself.
Before UG, people thought that heavier objects fall at a greater rate than lighter ones. As there is not a single case where that holds true, it is a falsified theory.
I think one of the best examples of this is the evolution of our understanding of the immediate solar system.
Geocentric - Ptolemy - accepted theory for thousands of years - FALSIFIED BY
Heliocentric - Copernicus - ENHANCED BY KEPLER, NEWTON, BRAHE, ETC...
Notice that to this day we can describe our solar system as a Heliocentric Copernican system, as it has not been falsified even though some details were off, while Ptolemy was falsified, the Earth is not at the center of anything.
Ultimately falsification is but one of many criteria that a scientific theory should include.
While this thread has focused on it, and some think it's valid while some do not agree, it is the modern reality of a scientific theory.
For those who do not agree with Falsification as a criterion for a scientific theory, I ask what is proposed as the alternative? Not any form of "reasoning" as that is what falsification replaced, so what is a BETTER method?
Now, when actually testing, other assumptions are made, which can be written as this statement:
All data values (m1, m2, r) are accurate and all calculations are performed with all necessary data.
This statement is ANDed with the logic chain of UG, to become the statement which is actually tested. If our results are innaccurate, then the 4 component chain is false.
Of course we are testing the theory itself, the first 3 statements, ANDed. We check our data, thus...
...in the case of uranus, our incomplete data, as in the existence of Neptune, renders the entire 4 component testing statement false. We retest, and our results are accurate. Our initial data was inaccurate, and the theory stands, as you have said, and I agree.
In the case of Mercury, our testing chain fails. We, however discover that mass is indeed a variable. So we stop assuming mass to be constant and acknowledge it's variability.
The assumption of constant mass is an integral part of UG. Then we operate with mass being variable. Universal Gravitation is now a new idea saying m1 and m2 are variable, the formula holds, and then assumes other Classical assumptions which have not yet been falsified.
The old theory was falsified, and a new one is given in it's place. In the case of such hulking and complex ideas like theories, they are constantly falsified, and recreated all the time. Thus falsifiability, a valid criteria.
Glad we agree it is valid, I think we are just split on the definition.
I do not see building a more refined theory on top of another one as falsifying the one that is being built on.
Falsification requires throwing out the old one and replacing it with something new.
Like a geocentric solar system vs. a heliocentric one.
Ptolemy is falsified as no part of his theory is used, while Copernicus, Kepler, Brahe, Galileo, Hubble, etc are not falsified, just modifications built on each other.
How much different, really, is the Ptolemaic system from the Heliocentric of Newton's time if you acknowledge that the truer perspective is that from the earth, looking outwards, as opposed to an extrasolar observer, whose vision is only imagined and predicted, never seen?
It is better then religeon as far as it goes. Human advancement is what we need no ignorance. Beliving in no form of higher intelect or source is illogical. IT seems so far there is no right or wrong only the most. As so we can do better then the previous. IT doesnt take much for me like others to manipulate the minds of other people. Many people may percieve others to be outrageous in there belives. For one it brings more harm then good. We should stop basing things on right/wrong only best.
i think we generally agree here, just in the details:
As you say "The old theory was falsified, and a new one is given in it's place." I totally agree with you, like falsifying Ptolemy and replacing it with Copernicus.
Where I think we differ is that I do not view UG as being replaced with GR as it is an integral part of GR.
I see it as modified, not falsified.
Both falsification and modification are characteristics of a scientific theory,
"The assumption of constant mass is an integral part of UG"
I had to look this up again, and in no point in any of the Principia is there a debate about mass being variable or constant. He doesn't go there, so how can he be wrong?
Top it off with his Rules of Reasoning, specifically rule 4, and you can see how in fact he actually made room to grown into GR.
"...till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions."
Possibly it's not mentioned because it's simply an assumption. Newton was unaware of how gravity was transmitted of course, and as far as I know he did not present dubious meanderings of any kind in the Principia, however disturbed he was by certain gaps in classical knowledge.
The fourth rule of reasoning is, also of course, a basic given of science. Certainly he had intended for a general growth.
"Falsification requires throwing out the old one and replacing it with something new."
Does it?
Let's say we define a theory as a big, very long, and complex logical statement, like earlier.
Stepping back, then, isn't the basic criteria for falsifiability simply for any statement, or theory, to be shown to be false. Assuming a simple logical structure, any small error renders the theory false. After all, who is to say when exactly a theory is no longer being modified, but instead, replaced?
If you define "theory" as a big, very long and complex chain, I would logically agree that you are correct.
If you apply conformational holism however, that one big long complex chain actually turns into a series of dependent small theories.
Taken further this shows that unfavorable results do not auto-discredit one theory, as it may have been due to another and we don't really know which it is.
This makes statistical hypothesis testing the logical determining factor, not reasoning alone.
that your interpretation is obvious if looking inward upon the solar system, like a camera, with some great ability to magnigy, hanging some distance outside the greatest extent of pluto. Of course, we try and eke out our livings upon the surface of the third planet, and our perspective is not so clear.
Put it this way, and i'm generalizing somewhat. The ptolemaic system did work quite well in predicting the orbits, to say nothing of it's efficiency, as in it's complexity.
If the ptolemaic model had such errors and was rife with such inaccuracies to make any comparison with heliocentricity the difference between looking at a model of the solar system, on one hand seeing the sun, a great mass in the center and all others circling about, and on the other hand, the earth in the center, and others circling likewise. This of course is a huge difference and a great error, and, as you say, it would be falsified, and not refined.
And, of course, under the ptolemaic system, there are no orbits, the earth is a sphere, and the sphere of the closest planet to the earth is a spherical shell sitting on top, and then the next planet out, until you get to the shell containing stars, there is no vacuum, and there are no orbits.
The differences are only apparent from the perspective of the extrasolar observer, it is that observer who would say that ptolemy was obviously false, and that copernicus was mostly, so much more, right.
Einsten's theory did supersede Newton's, for when the theory is still used in certain situations, are those people not simply using Einstein's theory, with certain assumptions?
Assumptions like a lack of spacetime curvature and such? An individual chooses to make these assumptions where he/she does expect them to be true. They start out with Einstein's and make assumptions to use Newton's.
Oh, they might not say that, but do we want to know what people call things, or what these things are?
It seems to me you have never actually solved an EFE, for if you had, you would know that it is totally based on Newtonian mechanics. It did not "replace" or "superceed" UG, in fact EFE reduces to UG in weak gravity. It is an enhancement, that is all. This is why every space agency on this planet uses UG to put craft in orbit, it works and has not been falsified.
There seems to be a pattern in this thread where people think a degree of inaccuracy from lack of info is the same as falsification.
However, I'm aware it is based on Newtonian mechanics.
But, again, my point was almost entirely contained by EFE reducing to UG. It is more general, and contains within itself, UG. Which is what I meant by "superceded."
NASA uses UG. NASA also knows that additional factors in the EFE's do not apply. Do you see my point?
The questions you ask seem to be concerned with how people in the world go on after a theory has been falsified. It is a circular and tautological argument to state that a universal statement was proved false, and that it still was used in at least one setting, therefore it was not falsified.
The theory of gravity was falsified when it was known the theory disagreed with the actual motion of mercury's parahelion. After. it certainly was not a crime to use the theory where it was known to work.
The problem I see in this thread is an unclear understanding of falsifiability.
"where it was known to work"
This one statement show the theory has not been falsified, if it had, it would not work at all.
It is not the theories fault that the people putting it to the test did not have all of the information necessary.
Once you account for variable mass (per Einstein), Newtonian mechanism DOES account for Mercury's, and all planetary, motion. Far from falsified, don't you think?
I believe I see vaguely what you mean, and that it is not really possible to prove anything.
However, what if you simply prove that rule holds within, say, a certain probability range, and to further refine this as to approach 100% certainty, but without actually getting there, like an inverse squared curve as you move further down the x-axis. Sometimes, this is the same as actual proof, and it seems the contradiction is gone.
Perhaps you could detail this contradiction a bit?
"Perhaps you could detail this contradiction a bit?"
I can try.
In passing, I should note that I do not believe that it is "not really possible to prove anything." That is Verzen's position , and one that leads to a contradiction.
if I can't prove anything, then I can't disprove anything, either. This is where the more sophisticated forms of falsificationism run into problems.
No one can prove, without a doubt, that evolution works the way it does. HOWEVER, we can, based on observation rule things out. The more we rule things out, the closer we get to what is happening.
But if we ASSUME something is true than we run into problems... Like, for instance, not bothering to research further.
Ultimately the scientific community accepts falsification as a better criterion of analyzing empirical statements than inductive reasoning. That is hopefully simple to see.
Is it perfect? No.
Is it the best method available? So far, yes, but as always, the scientific community is open to better ideas.
Do people have a problem with it? Yes, but they tend to be philosophers trying to promote their own ideas, or creationists looking for a crutch, but no one has a more accepted alternative.
@fiercegallantry Inability to prove anything does not imply that disproving anything is equally impossible
1. In Math proof is actually possible.
2. In Sciences that's a little different, because all you have is facts (=observation) and deduction via rational thinking. Proving a hypothesis would require that all possible cases are unambiquously shown to be true. That would amount to an effort that goes to infinity. However, disproving a hypothesis can be achieved by one single counter-example.
Well, technically, Newton's theory of gravity was not falsifiable in the Popperian sense. In science, the target for the arrow of _modus tollens_ is uncertain.
It is popular to invoke this high-school -level definition of science, but the dmearcation problem is actually much more serious than commonly assumed.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
A philosopher's point of view does not actually change the accepted reality of scientists, sorry. Scientific theories ARE falsifiable.
As for modus tollens, that is not a very insightful statement. In scientific research, the answer is not known before you begin (duh). In theories, predictability is mandatory, your statement is irrelevant.
The demarcation problem IS serious, that is the point of the video. Religion regularly tries to encroach on science, where it has no business whatsoever.
If science is falsifiable in the Popperian sense, then Newton was not science, since his theories produced false predictions & those theories were nevertheless accepted.
Modus tollens is quite significant. however, the target of the arrow of falsification is elusiive. Claims never meet the tribunal of sense data alone. *Something* is being falsified, but *what* is being falified by any given observation may be unclear.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Again with the philosophy...
Newton was very much a scientist whose theories made many correct predictions, while some missed the mark. They were the best theories available.
Einstein then made a better theory. Many MORE predictions are correct. Some still miss the mark.
But it is the best we have. That is science.
"falsified but it is unclear" - Well, when what you know is not behaving as expected, that is called "the unknown". Your statement is irrelevant, not modus tollens itself.
You realize, of course, that you can't discuss teh philosophy of science without employing philosophy. The question is whether your assumptions will be open & examined (like mine) or hidden, unexammined, & probably erroneous (like yours).
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Open through denial? How is that possible. What alternative have you presented? Seems to me like the essence of your argument is:
"Nuh-uh!"
Maybe if you can present an alternative theory, I may be open to it, but until then I will, as will the rest of the intelligent world, see Gravity (and Evolution) as the leading theories in those fields of study.
You cling to a simplistic notion of science. You insist, based on some unnamed authority, that science must be "falsfiable." But you have not defined what you mean by falsifiability. Falsifiability, in the original Popperian sense, cannot be a requirment of science, because no scientific theory is regarded as falisfiable in that sense.
Newton's theory of gravity was "falsified" but not rejected.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
My issue is not with Philosophy, Karl Popper, falsification, modus tollens or the demarcation problem, but rather YOUR gross misrepresentation of all of the above.
Yes, a scientific theory must be falsifiable. My "unnamed authority"? Karl Popper, you know, the guy that championed the entire concept of falsification over justification. Funny how you think Popper and Newton don't mix, yet "Testability is falsifiability" writes Popper and guess what? You CAN test for Gravity!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
There is a difference between citing a source and appeal to authority.
I presented you with a concept, and cited the source as you asked.
You started by stating an outright lie and then attributed it incorrectly to a person of authority. You cannot say "In a Poppernian sense" and then blurt out anything you want.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I'm just re reading some of my comments... seems some are missing.
I think it's telling that they would give a poor grade to a comment that says that if you presuppose a god and find evidence that is contrary to said god, that you would have to be prepared to throw out the god presupposition.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Hey chyrd, we pulled in another -8 to -11 votes in less than 24 hours while channel ratings and views went up by 1!
Way to be so subtly deceptive, IDiots!
"fiercegallantry" - I find it interesting that during my exchange with "ProtoSteward", one that lasted a couple of weeks, that there was not one + or - vote for either of us. Then, after I was done debunking each point, you come on the conversation and the votes explode! Deceptive little cowards is what you are, you and your flock-bots!
" 'In the Poppernian sense,' Newton's theory was not falsified and hold to this day as science. Especially by Popper's standards."
Half right. Newton's theory of gravity is still well-regarded today. However, it *was* falsified in the Popperian sense. It generated predictions that turned out to be false, and yet the theory was not discarded.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Did you do that research I asked?
Obviously not.
In Karl Popper's view, the ENTIRE theory must be incorrect in order to be falsified. An anomaly, by Poppernian standards, does not qualify as falsification.
What you are saying is actually 100% wrong, and now I am beginning to think you are doing this deceptively, on purpose with the goal of misleading others.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Refutation doesn't mean squat... You interpret the data initially by unaided senses... and move on from there with equipment designed to bolster those senses... That's how...
That sound incorrect to you? Or... should we... plea to god to show tell us what we are looking at?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Wittgenstein actually refuted empirical explanation for linguistic description, not scientific models.
A Sellars quote I found states "each fact can not only be noninferentially known to be the case, but presupposes no other knowledge either of particular matter of fact"
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
If I were you I wouldn't bother with this nitwit.. he will get to the point where he tells you you don't get the definition of a word... then when you give him the definition will tell you that you may know what it means but you aren't employing it correctly... then when pressed for his definition, you will be told that he hasn't the time to give one to an ignoramus like you...
In other words... he's another apologist who thinks he has a good argument... and when it falls apart, runs away...
A presupposition is basic commitment, used to interpret and judge evidence. All people have these commitments. Without them, we could not even begin to make sense of the world around us.
You seem to think it means something else, since you cannot use ther term properly.
I don't think people should waste their time talking to you, since you don't know what you're talking about, and don't care that you don't know.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
but a presupposition of a god is a means to its own end... Unless you are willing and able to throw the god out when the evidence shows that your presupposition is wrong...
The whole conversation that you didn't read, was based on the fact that you shouldn't start with a conclusion... an hypothesis... sure... but throwing out evidence because it doesn't work with your god presupposition is NOT science...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Worse than that it seems. On a channel with 122 ratings since 1/12/2007, an average of 3-4 per month, your comments and mine all got voted in the the -15 range within a day, while the opposing view went into the +15 range. Oddly enough the week before the rankings were in the -2 to +2 range. And a couple of weeks later the balance is going back to where it was a month ago.
Can you say ratings attack?
It does keep with their character of course, bunch of deceptive, actually evil, cowards...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
they figure that if they can't obscure the logic, reason and truth of the matter... they will try to downplay the commenting by giving negative feedback...
sad for them really...
Truth has a way of rearing it's ugly head no matter how much you stick your fingers in your ears and cry la la la...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Ignorant... so is everyone depending on the subject matter...
Little... don't think so
Liar... people lie in order to get away with things they normally couldn't... However... not you or anyone or any conversation on here is worth my time to lie to or about... Lying also assumes precognition... if I'm saying something that I'm wrong about... show me where and I will capitulate... but don't call me a liar...
Twerp - That's something I've never been called to my face...
You don't understand science. Science MUST be falsifiable as in, it MUST be able to be proven false. For instance, Gravity is falsifiable because if an apple were to say... spontaniously defy the laws of gravity, then there would need to be some serious reworking of the theory.
However - an example of something that isn't falsifiable is creationism. There is NOTHING that ANYONE can see about creationism that can prove it ultimately wrong. Thus, creationism is not science. Make sense?
No, YOU aren't listening. ALL falsifiable means, is that it's a hypothetical situation. IF this happens than it can be proven false. For instance, IF we find a human skeleton that is 300 million years old than evolution can be proven false or it needs a serious reworking of the theory.
Likewise IF someone or something can defy gravity than gravity can be proven false. Thus, Newton's theory of gravity is science because it CAN be proven false. It doesn't mean it WILL be...
Look, I know you high school wrestling coach told you that science must be "falsifiable." But you don't seem to have a clear idea of what the term means.
The idea of empirical falsification involves a prediction (based on a hypothesis) which turns out to be untrue. This incorrect prediction is said to *falsify* the hypothesis.
However, the theory of gravity led to false predictions. The theory, however, was not rejected. Thus, the theory is not falsifiable.
"Look, I know you high school wrestling coach told you that science must be "falsifiable." But you don't seem to have a clear idea of what the term means."
Ad'hominem attacks are not a valid argument.
A theory CAN lead to false predictions. This means that the theory IS falsifiable because it CAN and often WILL lead to false predictions but it CHANGES with new data.
The notion of God is not science because there are NO predictions and it's not falsifiable.
So what you are saying is that something can be scientific if there is no 'hypothetical' way of proving it wrong? ROFL!!!!! You are something else. Thanks.. You made my day.
Falsification means that something CAN be proven wrong. If something cannot be proven wrong, it's not science. Thus, it's not discredited. For instance if we start seeing things float without any reason, than we can assume that gravity has been proven false. Likewise, if we find a 1 billion Year old human skeleton.
I HAVE researched it. You cannot prove that something is happening. You can only prove that something is NOT happening. You can only disprove things in science. In effect, by disproving multiple things, you are actually proving things. It is impossible to prove what something indefinately is.
By saying that falsificationism has problems, you have no idea what you're talking about.
WTF? It's NOT a contradiction. You cannot prove that something is happening. For instance, you cannot prove, 100% that evolution is happening the way it is happening. However, if data is not consistent with what you had originally thought, than you have proved that evolution is NOT happening the way that you think it is and you can rule this out.
Sure it is. You cannot claim that Proposition A if false without upholding Proposition B (where B = not A).
here is one problem with falsificationism: It doesn't allow you to make positive statements, but you can't claim to have a falsifying experience unless you can claim positive knowledge of the falsifying experience.
And btw.. Yes, you can claim that proposition A is false if Proposition B is false. (if) A then B Not B Not A (VALID logical argument) (if) A then B A B (VALID logical argument) What YOU are suggesting is this If A then B Not A B (INVALID logical pattern)
For instance, for the longest time we thought that humans evolved 30,000 years ago. We find a fossil that is 100,000 years old. Evolution is not proven false and as a result not taught. It simply changes and adapts to the new information that is presented.
No matter how many times the hypothesis is proven false, if only the PREDICTIONS are proven false, it doesn't make the entire thing false. To do so would be illogical.
So by saying that scientists predict that gravity will remain intact and will never stop being in effect is not a prediction? Don't be dumb! They are predicting the continuous effect of gravity.
No. It was overturned. But it was not falsified by simple experimentation.
Newton's theory, along with simple assumptions, predicted that acceleration due to gravity would be constant at sea level anywhere on Earth. It isn't. Instead of rejecting Newton's theory, the scientific community rejected the auxiliary hypotheses.
"No. It was overturned. But it was not falsified by simple experimentation. "
Falsification means that it can be proven wrong. That is all it means. Newtons theory was proven wrong and replaced by an updated theory by Einstein.
If something is NOT falsifiable, it means that no amount of evidence will be able to prove it wrong. Since Newtons theory was proven to not be entirely correct, it was replaced.
"Falsification means that it can be proven wrong. That is all it means"
Historically, no, that is not 'all' the term has meant. Nor is this definition very meaningful. this definintion glosses over the core issue -- what counts as proof (or disproof).
2) There are other factors to account for, centripetal force, variable distances, causing variations in measurements.
You to conclude #1 is correct while the entire scientific community agrees on #2.
Newton said F=G(M1M2/r^2), NOT "Gravity is the same at sea level". Guess what? When you account for centripetal forces and realize r varies by your location on earth, Newton's formula works out.
The theory of gravity states F = G (m1 * m2) / r^2.
You also state that that Gravity was falsified.
But that formula is still used to this day and successfully explains almost all observed phenomenon.
This is why IT HAS NOT been falsified.
Einstein did not replace Newton, both models are in use today.
Einstein accounts for more factors than Newton, hence it is more accurate, but it DOES still suffer from inaccuracies. Neither model is perfect, but they are both valid and not falsified.
At that time, Newton's theory was not rejected, despite "falsifying" empirical evidence. Therefore, it was not strictly falsifiable.
Attempts to overcome this kind of shortcoming make the idea of "falsification" more complicated, less well defined, and subject to other logical problems. I do not find any of the so-called solutions that I have seen workable.
Can you clarify how, "At that time" as you say, Newton's theories were actually falsified?
You say there was empirical evidence at the time that clearly showed Newton was incorrect, but I cannot seem to find any examples of failure, more like a revolutionary success.
Can you show us an example where an object DOES NOT fall to the earth at 9.8m/s^2 in a vacuum?
You keep repeating this notion that Newton was falsified, but have yet to show how. Can you cite an example?
"Cover up" - That is nonsense. Every peer-reviewed scientific paper is clear about it's shortcomings, and if it is not, the peer-review process takes care of that.
Of course it didn't happen EXACTLY the way we think, but pretty darn close, and close enough to count on in daily life.
"Stronger" - The actual mechanism for evolution has been discovered, genetics. The actual mechanism for Gravity has not. So how can you justify Gravity as "stronger"?
Newtonian mechanics does not even accurately predict the movement of Mercury.
GR leaves open the topics of quantum gravity, singularities, cosmological constants (dark matter & dark energy), the Inflationary epoch, the Pioneer anomaly, etc...
While each theory has it's issues, evolution is far better understood than gravity,
No, gravity is far worse. There is no observed graviton particle, gravity and quantum theory clash big time, and there are GIANT holes in both Newton and Einstein's Theory of Gravity.
Clearly, if the theory of Gravity is outright wrong like Newton, or full of holes and errors like Einstein, Gravity just does not exist, obviously...
You are right Morty... the evidence for the theory is lacking, most of it is in fact, gone from the face of the earth forever.
But evolutionary theory is not nearly as lacking as the Theory of Gravity.
Now, that is a stumper. Newton and Einstein had totally different theories about Gravity. Both are seriously flawed and do not explain some really basic observations.
So obviously, Gravity is wrong...right?
I wish more creationists would see the parallel and go jump off something tall...
Absolutely wrong. Molecular biology depends hugely on genetics. The field wouldn't even exist without genetics.
Genetics are the explanation of diversity and with barely any exaggeration, genetics is the largest piece of evidence FOR evolution.
Physiology is also concerned with evolution. They search for variations within species to understand why those changes have occurred and that is also no small part of evolution.
Everything from Neuroscience to biochemistry assumes evolution occurs.
Of course not. You're mixing up the colloquial use of the word theory with the scientific meaning. Theories need evidence by their definition.
If you had evidence to suggest a teacup was in perpetual orbit around the Earth, then we would accept it as something near fact until evidence could be provided to dismiss the a claim. That's the process of science.
Yes, scientists would believe there was a teacup in orbit around the earth if it could be backed up with evidence and couldn't be disproven.
No. There's essentially more evidence for evolution than anything outside of mathematics. Its as close to 100% as u can get.
The only thing that's ever going to replace evolution as a theory is going to incorporate evolution. Evolution has effectively been proven. Yes, I use the word proven.
Almost every field of science agrees with evolution and in 150 years when ANY new discovery at all might have disproven evolution, the opposite has happened. Each piece of new science promotes evolution.
Evolution has had more criticism than any other theory. Biology is essentially founded upon evolution, which means every biologist has an excellent understanding of evolution. And none of the millions of biologists out there have ever come up with anything to disprove it, which would win them fame, money and nobel prizes.
You could prove it wrong, easily. Find a fossil of a dog on the same stratum as a dinosaur. Find DNA evidence to show we didn't split up from other Vertebrate. Anything.
Give me a single example of a scientist who had evidence for anything other than evolution.
You wont. Because you can't. because it doesn't exist.
I'm not saying evolution is definitely true. Nobody is. Nobody. No scientist would ever say that. But as far as our evidence goes, (genetic, fossil record, comparative anatomy etc) there is no other theory which comes close to the amount of evidence evolution has.
Actually the point of science is to prove theories wrong. You can't ever prove something actually happened. We can't prove that the atom for example looks anything like what we think it looks like, because that would defy the theory of gravity. But as soon as we can find a better theory then we'll adjust our atomic model immediately.
When we can replace a theory with a better one, we do. We can't 'prove' the theory of gravity. But we accept it until we find a better theory.
If someone says "Evolution is not true." Then yes, they're going to almost certainly lose their jobs and be discredited in the scientific community. But that's because they're so bad at science that they ignore the evidence. Essentially making them bad scientists.
If they said "I have reason to believe evolution is not true because of the following evidence" then they wouldn't be rejected.
I'm sick of all these people not understanding the scientific process.
Religion poisons the mind. START THINKING.
Thinkdeep420 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Have u lied? Have u stolen? Jesus said if you look at a woman with lust you have committed adultery with her in your heart. have u done that?
If God judge’s u by the Ten Commandments will u be innocent or guilty? Heaven or Hell? Does this concern you?
Do u need a Savior from your sins?
Jesus (The Son of God)came, lived a sinless life, died on the cross (for our sins) and rose again on the third day.
needgod.com
if you are interested in abortion or thinking of having one watch 180 movie
standingontruth1 2 months ago in playlist Can science and religion coexist?
1 person shouldn't own a computer
hempartist420 5 months ago
@TheGetano1 For the love of my flying spaghetti monster just provide evidence against evolution. For example a poodle next to a t-rex. If you find anything that shows evidence against common ancestry and change over time you will become one wealthy person and the winner of a nobel prize. It doesn't matter what people believed, it is whether or not the theory fits the facts. Genesis doesn't fit those facts.
braedencowbrough 5 months ago
@TheGetano1 Planets aren't exactly part of the process of evolution, since they aren't alive. Same goes for most human creations. There are domestic animals and plants - bananas, peas, dogs, cats, born through artificial selection. If you leave a pack of dogs into the wilderness for multiple generations, then the resulting feral dogs will look less fancy and more adapted to their surrounding environment due to natural selection that weeds out the ones that were unfit for life in the wilderness.
Mirhaus 6 months ago
How is it possible to consider the questions you infer without' creating' the answers. Don't backtrack now,..:)
Budfam74 6 months ago
The getano! Fantastic! At last you can truly believe that the image of god that we possess plus merely a creation of our own minds! Yes creation is evident! But only in our minds, the more of reality we uncover the less we need to bother our creativeness with such things,, I'm glad that you at least admit that the bible is just a Human creation, I agree.
Budfam74 6 months ago
@TheGetano1 so you say that humans create things that reproduce biologically?
Meskiagkasher 6 months ago in playlist All about Creationism
This has been flagged as spam show
"Random mutations consistently destroy information." P. 15; "Selection cannot rescue the genome." P. 69; "Mutation / selection cannot even create a single gene." P. 123; "All evidence points to human genetic degradation." P.143 - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Cornell U. Genetics Professor John Sanford. He holds 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. He is truly an expert on the subject of mutations and natural selection. Evolution is a fairy tale for adults.
achilles197474 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Revelation 10:11 And they say to me(John), "You must prophesy again with regard to peoples and nations and tongues and many kings."
Is John one of the witnesses?
Check out my favs, especially the one about the stars found in the bible. Pics in those videos of the Sun Moon and Stars are authentic and the end time is drawing. The stars seem to be 11 then 12 and then definitely7. Check out these symbols and signs from heaven.
themiraclesonearth 11 months ago
Thanks for the vids. and
showing god did it is not good enough. It never has been, and never will be. No matter how long it takes. the Greeks didn't know what we do, and we don't know what the future holds. unless we stop at god done it. Our grand kids and so on will probably look at us as having gone through the last of the creation god done it type people.
pumpstations 1 year ago
This method of science strives to improve our knowledge, rather than stagnate. Even religious people must abide by this general rule simply by looking at history, the time span of the earth and what the various religious texts claim.
TrueRamses 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TrueRamses science in these fields =GUESSWORK only
Atheist / science use the gospel of guesswork
here is a challenge!
Give the age of the earth or evolution
without utilising assumptive data to calculate it?
valu777 1 year ago
Verification basically proves something right and then there is no further argument, there couldn't be, because the very nature of verification is that a "truth" is found. But history have taught us that this is simply not the case. Great geniouses have been proven wrong. or at least not fully right, throughout the ages, but falsification always leaves the back door open for improvement. Modern science does not deal in absolutes. There is no right and wrong, there is only what is likely.
TrueRamses 1 year ago
Basically the very foundation of our scientific paradigm, which is the best we know as of yet, is that falsification dominates over verification. This has been scientifical law since Francis Bacon, and there is a good reason.
Verifying something is the "easy way out", where something verified would then be unrefutable, becasuse it is verified, falsification always leaves the door open for new ideas, new advances, new steps forward in science and there is a very logical resaon for this.
TrueRamses 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's important to understand that there is a BIG, BIG difference between science and belief systems. Scientific laws and theories are tools used to solve problems. Religions are things you believe in. Evolution is NOT something you believe in. It is a tool used to solve problems... like your hammer. You don't believe in your hammer, you use it to solve problems.
blaisingm 1 year ago
how come it is that we cannot prove but we can disprove? the topic of carl popper's career, who's dead now. the logic format of modus ponens is not symetric, it goes one way...from observation we build theory, if we explan with theory the observations, then it is circular, (of course it explains the concerned observation!!!). but because modus ponens is not symetric, we can falsify theories with oberservations that contradict theories....and much more from popper's trilogy
unsatura 1 year ago
@unsatura It's part of the rules. Theories can't be proven, they can only be disproven.
gpietsch 1 year ago
@unsatura "how come it is that we cannot prove but we can disprove?"
Because proof is an absolute. We cannot prove we are really where we think we are (we might aswell be in the matrix for all we know). Evidence is the best we can do because of our limitations as a feeble human species. Proof is only for mathematics. 1+1 is always 2 no matter what you do (aslong as you know how to count that is). If science dealt with proofs then it couldn't ever be adapted in light of new better evidence.
byteresistor 1 year ago 2
i wonder if low amounts of intelect is what fuels ignorance. based on my observation is so. since people lack the brain capacity they try to find answers that can fit in their simplistic mind sets. So they create there own answers. Then we are judged by science. You know there is such thing as pseudscience. So just like there are good and bad christians there are stupid and smart ones. It applies to every organization. There are basic principals to everything you cant change the law
pureefficient 1 year ago 2
pureefficient, it seems to me that religious people do not lack intelligence.
Rather it seems to me that humans have
a strong need for conformity to a group
which can override intellect. Cooperation
with other humans may as important or
even more important than intelligence for
human survival. Even what we call intelligence largely functions to aid human
interaction. We think in language which
is for human interaction.
nothingislight 1 year ago
@nothingislight
Yes that is true. Even so we must try to make others coperate so that we can advance many aspects of the human life.
I don't expect there to be much equality in the future . Personally I understand that maybe having a higher intelect can be an inherited trait.But from what i have seen many problems even scientifical statistics can be made by reasoning and comparison/contrast. Yet many people have lack common sense. It sadeness me to know more then the general public at 14.
pureefficient 1 year ago
That was a little messy, so here's a summary:
It is only apparent that Ptolemy was falsified and Copernicus refined from the perspective of an extrasolar observer. Under a ptolemaic system, you can predict planetary motions in just fine. Of course the solar system is not a solid sphere, with outermost spherical shells grinding over the inner, but from our perspective, the calculations work out very well.
pjnlsn 2 years ago
But that is useless from the perspective of debate, right?
Going back, I don't agree with how you classify the change from Ptolemaic to Heliocentric, from UG to relativity, in the broadest scope. I don't see a huge difference between an earth centered view of the solar system and a helio centric, well not large enough to be absolute. As in, the ptolemaic system was falsified but the helio centric was simply refined.
It seems...
pjnlsn 2 years ago
I agree then, that reasoning alone cannot decide exactly which assumption has been falsified. In general, Statistical Hypothesis Testing seems a good place to start...
Do any of our old commenters have thoughts?
pjnlsn 2 years ago
Well, i've finally taken the time to even _skim_ the wikipedia article on confirmation holism. I was both extremely pleased that it involved a definition of a theory quite similar to mine, defining them as logical statements comprised of hypotheses, and that I believe I have finally come to grasp your point.
pjnlsn 2 years ago
I see now how it logically follows that theories cannot be falsified solely with "reference to evidence." The article says that Popper, of course credited with developing the idea of falsifiability, acknowledged that given this "underdetermination," it is possible to make a theory fit any set of experimental data if series of specific changes are repeatedly applied to the actual theory.
pjnlsn 2 years ago
And thus the glorious realization:
When a theory like Universal Gravitation incorrectly predicts the motion of any planet, like Uranus, is the theory false? Or are the observations incorrect, and thus any one of the innumerable dependant small theories?
pjnlsn 2 years ago
How do we know that UG is not simply being changed very specifically, as to render it applicable, given any evidence whatsoever?
I see know the question, and that I indeed have no answer.
So then, until tomorrow...and good night.
pjnlsn 2 years ago
Er...does anyone agree, or have I totally missed the point? :)
pjnlsn 2 years ago
And, you are right, Einstein's model is inaccurate in certain situations.
When a person uses his model, he assumes that only newton's model including relativistic effects and spacetime curvature, etc, apply.
It is true that both Newton's and Einstein's theory are not both comprised of a single statement, universal, which is either true or false. A theory is falsifiable if it can be shown to be inaccurate, or wrong, in a setting. If it has been, then it has been falsified, in that setting.
pjnlsn 2 years ago
Technically, both Newton and Einstein are inaccurate in ALL situations. It is a matter of degree of inaccuracy. The fact that both get so close to not only the same answer, but the one verified by expirimentation, makes neither falsified.
Add to this the concept of confirmation holism and you can see how "other factors we didn't consider" do not negate the validity of the core theory.
UG can be tested all day long with agreeable results, this is why it's not falsified.
phricak 2 years ago
In which case, I would inquire to know how you define "falsified."
It seems as though you're confusing the definition of falsifiability which is applied specifically to basic, and of course universal, logical statements.
wikipedia says:
Like how the statement "All men are mortal" is not falsifiable, for no finite amount of experimentation can verify that at least one man, somewhere, can live forever?
Whereas "All men are immortal" is falsifiable for even one dead man makes the statement false?
pjnlsn 2 years ago
....with a criteria for falsification that can be applied to a theory as encompassing as UG.
There is no clear definition of falsifiability for such theories, In which case I would say simply that a theory is falsifiable if it can be shown to be more false. If it can be demonstrated to be false in a different manner and scope than before.
As science advances, the ways and extent to which old theories are false is shown, more and more.
pjnlsn 2 years ago
If a theory is false in some scenarios, and true in others, the concept of conformational holism requires one to ask what is different in the two scenarios? A single theory cannot be tested by itself, there are other forces at work.
The wiki on that topic has UG and it's inability to predict the motion of Uranus as a good example.
Was UG unable to predict the motion because:
1) UG is wrong, therefore falsified.
or
2) Something else is going on?
The answer is 2, and "something" was Neptune...
phricak 2 years ago
and the same principle hold for Mercury:
1) UG is wrong
or
2) Something else is going on.
Again, it was #2 and the realization that Mercury mass varied quite a bit due to the proximity of the Sun.
What was falsified in that case was the theory that mass (and time) is a fixed property of an object, not UG itself.
Before UG, people thought that heavier objects fall at a greater rate than lighter ones. As there is not a single case where that holds true, it is a falsified theory.
phricak 2 years ago
I think one of the best examples of this is the evolution of our understanding of the immediate solar system.
Geocentric - Ptolemy - accepted theory for thousands of years - FALSIFIED BY
Heliocentric - Copernicus - ENHANCED BY KEPLER, NEWTON, BRAHE, ETC...
Notice that to this day we can describe our solar system as a Heliocentric Copernican system, as it has not been falsified even though some details were off, while Ptolemy was falsified, the Earth is not at the center of anything.
phricak 2 years ago
Sorry to keep going, 500 limit ya know...
Ultimately falsification is but one of many criteria that a scientific theory should include.
While this thread has focused on it, and some think it's valid while some do not agree, it is the modern reality of a scientific theory.
For those who do not agree with Falsification as a criterion for a scientific theory, I ask what is proposed as the alternative? Not any form of "reasoning" as that is what falsification replaced, so what is a BETTER method?
phricak 2 years ago
I, of course, still find it valid...
Theories cannot be tested by themselves, yes. Take UG again:
For any two objects having mass m1 and m2, m1 and m2 being functions, they must be constant, AND
The UG formula is true for any two objects of such mass, seperated by distance r, AND
Other Classical assumptions.
Other assumptions like a spacetime which is not curved as under EFE.
The above 3 statement logic chain comprises the entirety of what was UG, when proposed by Newton.
pjnlsn 2 years ago
Now, when actually testing, other assumptions are made, which can be written as this statement:
All data values (m1, m2, r) are accurate and all calculations are performed with all necessary data.
This statement is ANDed with the logic chain of UG, to become the statement which is actually tested. If our results are innaccurate, then the 4 component chain is false.
Of course we are testing the theory itself, the first 3 statements, ANDed. We check our data, thus...
pjnlsn 2 years ago
...in the case of uranus, our incomplete data, as in the existence of Neptune, renders the entire 4 component testing statement false. We retest, and our results are accurate. Our initial data was inaccurate, and the theory stands, as you have said, and I agree.
In the case of Mercury, our testing chain fails. We, however discover that mass is indeed a variable. So we stop assuming mass to be constant and acknowledge it's variability.
pjnlsn 2 years ago
The assumption of constant mass is an integral part of UG. Then we operate with mass being variable. Universal Gravitation is now a new idea saying m1 and m2 are variable, the formula holds, and then assumes other Classical assumptions which have not yet been falsified.
The old theory was falsified, and a new one is given in it's place. In the case of such hulking and complex ideas like theories, they are constantly falsified, and recreated all the time. Thus falsifiability, a valid criteria.
pjnlsn 2 years ago
Glad we agree it is valid, I think we are just split on the definition.
I do not see building a more refined theory on top of another one as falsifying the one that is being built on.
Falsification requires throwing out the old one and replacing it with something new.
Like a geocentric solar system vs. a heliocentric one.
Ptolemy is falsified as no part of his theory is used, while Copernicus, Kepler, Brahe, Galileo, Hubble, etc are not falsified, just modifications built on each other.
phricak 2 years ago
How much different, really, is the Ptolemaic system from the Heliocentric of Newton's time if you acknowledge that the truer perspective is that from the earth, looking outwards, as opposed to an extrasolar observer, whose vision is only imagined and predicted, never seen?
pjnlsn 2 years ago
i want to ask to the white haired.if other scientist dont know what science is,so u know what science is?
khairuleven 2 years ago
theres no dogma to science.hence,atheism isnt absolutely right.
khairuleven 2 years ago
It is better then religeon as far as it goes. Human advancement is what we need no ignorance. Beliving in no form of higher intelect or source is illogical. IT seems so far there is no right or wrong only the most. As so we can do better then the previous. IT doesnt take much for me like others to manipulate the minds of other people. Many people may percieve others to be outrageous in there belives. For one it brings more harm then good. We should stop basing things on right/wrong only best.
pureefficient 1 year ago
i think we generally agree here, just in the details:
As you say "The old theory was falsified, and a new one is given in it's place." I totally agree with you, like falsifying Ptolemy and replacing it with Copernicus.
Where I think we differ is that I do not view UG as being replaced with GR as it is an integral part of GR.
I see it as modified, not falsified.
Both falsification and modification are characteristics of a scientific theory,
When you can no longer modify, you must falsify.
phricak 2 years ago
"The assumption of constant mass is an integral part of UG"
I had to look this up again, and in no point in any of the Principia is there a debate about mass being variable or constant. He doesn't go there, so how can he be wrong?
Top it off with his Rules of Reasoning, specifically rule 4, and you can see how in fact he actually made room to grown into GR.
"...till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions."
phricak 2 years ago
Possibly it's not mentioned because it's simply an assumption. Newton was unaware of how gravity was transmitted of course, and as far as I know he did not present dubious meanderings of any kind in the Principia, however disturbed he was by certain gaps in classical knowledge.
The fourth rule of reasoning is, also of course, a basic given of science. Certainly he had intended for a general growth.
pjnlsn 2 years ago
"Falsification requires throwing out the old one and replacing it with something new."
Does it?
Let's say we define a theory as a big, very long, and complex logical statement, like earlier.
Stepping back, then, isn't the basic criteria for falsifiability simply for any statement, or theory, to be shown to be false. Assuming a simple logical structure, any small error renders the theory false. After all, who is to say when exactly a theory is no longer being modified, but instead, replaced?
pjnlsn 2 years ago
If you define "theory" as a big, very long and complex chain, I would logically agree that you are correct.
If you apply conformational holism however, that one big long complex chain actually turns into a series of dependent small theories.
Taken further this shows that unfavorable results do not auto-discredit one theory, as it may have been due to another and we don't really know which it is.
This makes statistical hypothesis testing the logical determining factor, not reasoning alone.
phricak 2 years ago
that your interpretation is obvious if looking inward upon the solar system, like a camera, with some great ability to magnigy, hanging some distance outside the greatest extent of pluto. Of course, we try and eke out our livings upon the surface of the third planet, and our perspective is not so clear.
Put it this way, and i'm generalizing somewhat. The ptolemaic system did work quite well in predicting the orbits, to say nothing of it's efficiency, as in it's complexity.
pjnlsn 2 years ago
If the ptolemaic model had such errors and was rife with such inaccuracies to make any comparison with heliocentricity the difference between looking at a model of the solar system, on one hand seeing the sun, a great mass in the center and all others circling about, and on the other hand, the earth in the center, and others circling likewise. This of course is a huge difference and a great error, and, as you say, it would be falsified, and not refined.
pjnlsn 2 years ago
And, of course, under the ptolemaic system, there are no orbits, the earth is a sphere, and the sphere of the closest planet to the earth is a spherical shell sitting on top, and then the next planet out, until you get to the shell containing stars, there is no vacuum, and there are no orbits.
The differences are only apparent from the perspective of the extrasolar observer, it is that observer who would say that ptolemy was obviously false, and that copernicus was mostly, so much more, right.
pjnlsn 2 years ago
Einsten's theory did supersede Newton's, for when the theory is still used in certain situations, are those people not simply using Einstein's theory, with certain assumptions?
Assumptions like a lack of spacetime curvature and such? An individual chooses to make these assumptions where he/she does expect them to be true. They start out with Einstein's and make assumptions to use Newton's.
Oh, they might not say that, but do we want to know what people call things, or what these things are?
pjnlsn 2 years ago
It seems to me you have never actually solved an EFE, for if you had, you would know that it is totally based on Newtonian mechanics. It did not "replace" or "superceed" UG, in fact EFE reduces to UG in weak gravity. It is an enhancement, that is all. This is why every space agency on this planet uses UG to put craft in orbit, it works and has not been falsified.
There seems to be a pattern in this thread where people think a degree of inaccuracy from lack of info is the same as falsification.
phricak 2 years ago
as a side note,
I have never solved an EFE, it is true.
However, I'm aware it is based on Newtonian mechanics.
But, again, my point was almost entirely contained by EFE reducing to UG. It is more general, and contains within itself, UG. Which is what I meant by "superceded."
NASA uses UG. NASA also knows that additional factors in the EFE's do not apply. Do you see my point?
pjnlsn 2 years ago
The questions you ask seem to be concerned with how people in the world go on after a theory has been falsified. It is a circular and tautological argument to state that a universal statement was proved false, and that it still was used in at least one setting, therefore it was not falsified.
The theory of gravity was falsified when it was known the theory disagreed with the actual motion of mercury's parahelion. After. it certainly was not a crime to use the theory where it was known to work.
pjnlsn 2 years ago
The problem I see in this thread is an unclear understanding of falsifiability.
"where it was known to work"
This one statement show the theory has not been falsified, if it had, it would not work at all.
It is not the theories fault that the people putting it to the test did not have all of the information necessary.
Once you account for variable mass (per Einstein), Newtonian mechanism DOES account for Mercury's, and all planetary, motion. Far from falsified, don't you think?
phricak 2 years ago
@fiercegallantry
I believe I see vaguely what you mean, and that it is not really possible to prove anything.
However, what if you simply prove that rule holds within, say, a certain probability range, and to further refine this as to approach 100% certainty, but without actually getting there, like an inverse squared curve as you move further down the x-axis. Sometimes, this is the same as actual proof, and it seems the contradiction is gone.
Perhaps you could detail this contradiction a bit?
pjnlsn 2 years ago
"Perhaps you could detail this contradiction a bit?"
I can try.
In passing, I should note that I do not believe that it is "not really possible to prove anything." That is Verzen's position , and one that leads to a contradiction.
if I can't prove anything, then I can't disprove anything, either. This is where the more sophisticated forms of falsificationism run into problems.
fiercegallantry 2 years ago 4
WRONG WRONG WRONG.
No one can prove, without a doubt, that evolution works the way it does. HOWEVER, we can, based on observation rule things out. The more we rule things out, the closer we get to what is happening.
But if we ASSUME something is true than we run into problems... Like, for instance, not bothering to research further.
verzen 2 years ago
Again, you're not thinking.
If we can't prove anything, then we can't disprove anything, either. Else, how can we be sure than a falsification has occurred?
Just curious. Can you prove that we can never prove anything?
fiercegallantry 2 years ago 2
Wrong. In science, you NEVER prove anything without a doubt. However, you CAN disprove human flight. Or something similar.
Your question is redundant.
verzen 2 years ago
So, you can't prove your position, but you keep repeating it mindlessly? You have more in common with the YECers than you realize.
fiercegallantry 2 years ago 3
Ultimately the scientific community accepts falsification as a better criterion of analyzing empirical statements than inductive reasoning. That is hopefully simple to see.
Is it perfect? No.
Is it the best method available? So far, yes, but as always, the scientific community is open to better ideas.
Do people have a problem with it? Yes, but they tend to be philosophers trying to promote their own ideas, or creationists looking for a crutch, but no one has a more accepted alternative.
phricak 2 years ago
Odd that you do not see how "Can you prove that we can never prove anything?" is an illogical question.
Like asking "can an omnipotent being create an object so big it cannot lift it?"
It's called a paradox.
phricak 2 years ago
Or it's called a Complex Question.
verzen 2 years ago
Not that I am argumentative.. :)
A complex question is also known as a loaded question and it generally involves a presupposition that is not accepted by all parties.
The reason I see this more as a paradox is that it is a group of statements that contradict each other:
To prove the first part of the statement shows the second to be inherently false, and therefore the statement false.
To not prove the first part also discredits the entire statement.
There is no answer, hence paradox.
phricak 2 years ago
Comment removed
pjnlsn 2 years ago
@fiercegallantry Inability to prove anything does not imply that disproving anything is equally impossible
1. In Math proof is actually possible.
2. In Sciences that's a little different, because all you have is facts (=observation) and deduction via rational thinking. Proving a hypothesis would require that all possible cases are unambiquously shown to be true. That would amount to an effort that goes to infinity. However, disproving a hypothesis can be achieved by one single counter-example.
Meskiagkasher 1 year ago
@fiercegallantry Take a look at Godel proof that any system is either closed and inconsistent or it is incomplete.
Weird stuff worth thinking about.
drfoxcourt 10 months ago
So why is there evidence of evolution? Why does it seem we share a common ancestor with the great ape?
HighVoltage963 2 years ago 6
are you kidding?
ss3katen 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
A scientific theory must be falsifiable by definition.
If someone has a theory that is unfalsifiable, it is not a scientific theory...
phricak 2 years ago
Well, technically, Newton's theory of gravity was not falsifiable in the Popperian sense. In science, the target for the arrow of _modus tollens_ is uncertain.
It is popular to invoke this high-school -level definition of science, but the dmearcation problem is actually much more serious than commonly assumed.
ProtoSteward 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
A philosopher's point of view does not actually change the accepted reality of scientists, sorry. Scientific theories ARE falsifiable.
As for modus tollens, that is not a very insightful statement. In scientific research, the answer is not known before you begin (duh). In theories, predictability is mandatory, your statement is irrelevant.
The demarcation problem IS serious, that is the point of the video. Religion regularly tries to encroach on science, where it has no business whatsoever.
phricak 2 years ago
If science is falsifiable in the Popperian sense, then Newton was not science, since his theories produced false predictions & those theories were nevertheless accepted.
Modus tollens is quite significant. however, the target of the arrow of falsification is elusiive. Claims never meet the tribunal of sense data alone. *Something* is being falsified, but *what* is being falified by any given observation may be unclear.
ProtoSteward 2 years ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Again with the philosophy...
Newton was very much a scientist whose theories made many correct predictions, while some missed the mark. They were the best theories available.
Einstein then made a better theory. Many MORE predictions are correct. Some still miss the mark.
But it is the best we have. That is science.
"falsified but it is unclear" - Well, when what you know is not behaving as expected, that is called "the unknown". Your statement is irrelevant, not modus tollens itself.
phricak 2 years ago
Again with the lack of philosophy.
It's like Chesterton wrote: "The problem isn't that the don't know the answer. It's that they don't understand the question."
ProtoSteward 2 years ago 12
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yes! Exactly! A lack of philosophy (and religion)! We are talking about SCIENCE.
Ah Chesterton, the prince of paradox and a fantasy writer on top of that (just like L. Ron!)
I find it amusing how you refer to logical concepts in your posts, yet use no logical arguments whatsoever.
You have committed pre-school like "Appeal to Authority" now with two people, neither of which is a scientist.
In the Brooksonian sense, your arguments can be summed up at /watch?v=tl4VD8uvgec starting at 0:34...
phricak 2 years ago
You realize, of course, that you can't discuss teh philosophy of science without employing philosophy. The question is whether your assumptions will be open & examined (like mine) or hidden, unexammined, & probably erroneous (like yours).
ProtoSteward 2 years ago 11
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Open through denial? How is that possible. What alternative have you presented? Seems to me like the essence of your argument is:
"Nuh-uh!"
Maybe if you can present an alternative theory, I may be open to it, but until then I will, as will the rest of the intelligent world, see Gravity (and Evolution) as the leading theories in those fields of study.
Got something better? Bring it on!
No? Good day then.
phricak 2 years ago
My presuppsitions are open.
Yours -- well, you're not even aware of them.
You cling to a simplistic notion of science. You insist, based on some unnamed authority, that science must be "falsfiable." But you have not defined what you mean by falsifiability. Falsifiability, in the original Popperian sense, cannot be a requirment of science, because no scientific theory is regarded as falisfiable in that sense.
Newton's theory of gravity was "falsified" but not rejected.
ProtoSteward 2 years ago 14
This comment has received too many negative votes show
My issue is not with Philosophy, Karl Popper, falsification, modus tollens or the demarcation problem, but rather YOUR gross misrepresentation of all of the above.
Yes, a scientific theory must be falsifiable. My "unnamed authority"? Karl Popper, you know, the guy that championed the entire concept of falsification over justification. Funny how you think Popper and Newton don't mix, yet "Testability is falsifiability" writes Popper and guess what? You CAN test for Gravity!
phricak 2 years ago
Ah, so now you engage in an appeal to authority. Didn't you just say that such an appeal was illogical?
ProtoSteward 2 years ago 11
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There is a difference between citing a source and appeal to authority.
I presented you with a concept, and cited the source as you asked.
You started by stating an outright lie and then attributed it incorrectly to a person of authority. You cannot say "In a Poppernian sense" and then blurt out anything you want.
Readers - Just do the research yourselves.
phricak 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
They won't research themselves... they prefer remaining ignorant...
chyrd 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I'm just re reading some of my comments... seems some are missing.
I think it's telling that they would give a poor grade to a comment that says that if you presuppose a god and find evidence that is contrary to said god, that you would have to be prepared to throw out the god presupposition.
What is wrong with that statement?
Let them remain sheep
chyrd 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The sheep are not so baaaaad... It's the wolves in sheep's clothing that get me, acting like Satan while preaching God.
So sad that really they are making just missing out on the real beauty in all things.
phricak 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
agreed
chyrd 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hey chyrd, we pulled in another -8 to -11 votes in less than 24 hours while channel ratings and views went up by 1!
Way to be so subtly deceptive, IDiots!
"fiercegallantry" - I find it interesting that during my exchange with "ProtoSteward", one that lasted a couple of weeks, that there was not one + or - vote for either of us. Then, after I was done debunking each point, you come on the conversation and the votes explode! Deceptive little cowards is what you are, you and your flock-bots!
phricak 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is what happens when they have all of their point demolished and can't come up with anything else...
They are cowards...
chyrd 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hey chyrd, we pulled in another -8 to -11 votes in less than 24 hours while channel ratings and views went up by 1!
The comment rating system is updated in real time, the viewing system is updated periodically sometimes daily depending on the video.
sk8progression 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Open does not mean "belief in fantasy".
I try not to have presuppositions in the first place, I do not take a concept as given until proven.
I know there is no god, but am open to the possibility upon discovery of evidence.
Am I now more open than you are?
"In the Poppernian sense" Newton's theory was not falsified and hold to this day as science. ESPECIALLY by Popper's standards.
You should research the REAL Popper and not just what an "ID" group edited for you to try and sound smarter.
phricak 2 years ago
" 'In the Poppernian sense,' Newton's theory was not falsified and hold to this day as science. Especially by Popper's standards."
Half right. Newton's theory of gravity is still well-regarded today. However, it *was* falsified in the Popperian sense. It generated predictions that turned out to be false, and yet the theory was not discarded.
ProtoSteward 2 years ago 14
This comment has received too many negative votes show
because the theory still worked...
Again... Falsifiable does NOT mean false...
chyrd 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Did you do that research I asked?
Obviously not.
In Karl Popper's view, the ENTIRE theory must be incorrect in order to be falsified. An anomaly, by Poppernian standards, does not qualify as falsification.
What you are saying is actually 100% wrong, and now I am beginning to think you are doing this deceptively, on purpose with the goal of misleading others.
Shame on you.
phricak 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
thumbs up for you...
chyrd 2 years ago
"I try not to have presuppositions in the first place, I do not take a concept as given until proven."
Then you fail.
You cannot prove or disprove claims without judging those claims. What do you judge them against? Against the presuppositons of your world-view.
ProtoSteward 2 years ago 14
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You judge them against the data you've obtained... not the presupposition of a god... how do you judge something like that?
You presuppose god... Period... you then take what you are seeing and run it against your god databank... if it doesn't jive... you toss it...
chyrd 2 years ago
"You judge them against the data you've obtained"
And how do you interpret the data?
The empiricist theory of concept formation has been refuted by Wilfred Sellars & by Ludwig Wittgentstein.
fiercegallantry 2 years ago 14
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Refutation doesn't mean squat... You interpret the data initially by unaided senses... and move on from there with equipment designed to bolster those senses... That's how...
That sound incorrect to you? Or... should we... plea to god to show tell us what we are looking at?
Did you not get the part of the conversation???
chyrd 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Wittgenstein actually refuted empirical explanation for linguistic description, not scientific models.
A Sellars quote I found states "each fact can not only be noninferentially known to be the case, but presupposes no other knowledge either of particular matter of fact"
Why are you being so deceptive?
Got the Satan in you?
Shame on you.
phricak 2 years ago
would you and your boyfriend just shut the fuck up
superwowie111 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If I were you I wouldn't bother with this nitwit.. he will get to the point where he tells you you don't get the definition of a word... then when you give him the definition will tell you that you may know what it means but you aren't employing it correctly... then when pressed for his definition, you will be told that he hasn't the time to give one to an ignoramus like you...
In other words... he's another apologist who thinks he has a good argument... and when it falls apart, runs away...
chyrd 2 years ago
A presupposition is basic commitment, used to interpret and judge evidence. All people have these commitments. Without them, we could not even begin to make sense of the world around us.
You seem to think it means something else, since you cannot use ther term properly.
I don't think people should waste their time talking to you, since you don't know what you're talking about, and don't care that you don't know.
Readers: You have been warned.
fiercegallantry 2 years ago 15
This comment has received too many negative votes show
but a presupposition of a god is a means to its own end... Unless you are willing and able to throw the god out when the evidence shows that your presupposition is wrong...
The whole conversation that you didn't read, was based on the fact that you shouldn't start with a conclusion... an hypothesis... sure... but throwing out evidence because it doesn't work with your god presupposition is NOT science...
chyrd 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Worse than that it seems. On a channel with 122 ratings since 1/12/2007, an average of 3-4 per month, your comments and mine all got voted in the the -15 range within a day, while the opposing view went into the +15 range. Oddly enough the week before the rankings were in the -2 to +2 range. And a couple of weeks later the balance is going back to where it was a month ago.
Can you say ratings attack?
It does keep with their character of course, bunch of deceptive, actually evil, cowards...
phricak 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
they figure that if they can't obscure the logic, reason and truth of the matter... they will try to downplay the commenting by giving negative feedback...
sad for them really...
Truth has a way of rearing it's ugly head no matter how much you stick your fingers in your ears and cry la la la...
chyrd 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Now I get it...
You live in Antonym world... where up is down and left is right, and to presuppose means that you look at things with an open mind...
BTW... Science by definition MUST be falsifiable... or is that another term you aren't familiar with?
It doesn't mean something is false... but if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment.
Hence Science.
You spew Popperian Cosmology as if you know what you are talking about and that gives your argument credence.
chyrd 2 years ago
"Science by definition MUST be falsifiable"
By your definition. That definition has problems. Many actual philosophers of science -- not posers like you -- have problems with that definition.
Ignorant little lying twerp.
fiercegallantry 2 years ago 12
This comment has received too many negative votes show
so please... do go on... tell us the proper definition we are all awaiting your enlightenment...
Why don't you start with Empirical Verification... and we can go from there...
Shall we...
chyrd 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ignorant... so is everyone depending on the subject matter...
Little... don't think so
Liar... people lie in order to get away with things they normally couldn't... However... not you or anyone or any conversation on here is worth my time to lie to or about... Lying also assumes precognition... if I'm saying something that I'm wrong about... show me where and I will capitulate... but don't call me a liar...
Twerp - That's something I've never been called to my face...
chyrd 2 years ago
You don't understand science. Science MUST be falsifiable as in, it MUST be able to be proven false. For instance, Gravity is falsifiable because if an apple were to say... spontaniously defy the laws of gravity, then there would need to be some serious reworking of the theory.
However - an example of something that isn't falsifiable is creationism. There is NOTHING that ANYONE can see about creationism that can prove it ultimately wrong. Thus, creationism is not science. Make sense?
verzen 2 years ago
There may be any number of reasons why "creation science" is not science, but this is not one of them.
On one hand, you are being much too generous. Plenty of evidence seems to contradict the YEC position.
OTOH, you are being very naive. Science is not inherently "falsifiable" because falsifiability is not a well-defined standard.
Gravity, to use your example, was not rejected even after it was"falsified" through experimentation.
fiercegallantry 2 years ago 2
Yes, it is one of them. Creationism, no matter what, cannot be proven false. This makes it not a scientific issue.
All falsifiable means is that it CAN be proven wrong with an experiment.
verzen 2 years ago
You're not listening.
*If* science must be falsifiable, *then* Newton's theory of gravity is not science.
Are you telling me that the theory of gravity is not science?
fiercegallantry 2 years ago 2
No, YOU aren't listening. ALL falsifiable means, is that it's a hypothetical situation. IF this happens than it can be proven false. For instance, IF we find a human skeleton that is 300 million years old than evolution can be proven false or it needs a serious reworking of the theory.
Likewise IF someone or something can defy gravity than gravity can be proven false. Thus, Newton's theory of gravity is science because it CAN be proven false. It doesn't mean it WILL be...
verzen 2 years ago
Look, I know you high school wrestling coach told you that science must be "falsifiable." But you don't seem to have a clear idea of what the term means.
The idea of empirical falsification involves a prediction (based on a hypothesis) which turns out to be untrue. This incorrect prediction is said to *falsify* the hypothesis.
However, the theory of gravity led to false predictions. The theory, however, was not rejected. Thus, the theory is not falsifiable.
fiercegallantry 2 years ago
"Look, I know you high school wrestling coach told you that science must be "falsifiable." But you don't seem to have a clear idea of what the term means."
Ad'hominem attacks are not a valid argument.
A theory CAN lead to false predictions. This means that the theory IS falsifiable because it CAN and often WILL lead to false predictions but it CHANGES with new data.
The notion of God is not science because there are NO predictions and it's not falsifiable.
verzen 2 years ago
"The notion of God is not science because there are NO predictions and it's not falsifiable."
Maybe, maybe not.
I'm not talking about God. I'm talking about your discredited philosophy of science.
fiercegallantry 2 years ago 2
WHAT discredited philosophy of science? Evolution is testable. It's predictable. It's falsifiable. It's a scientific theory.
verzen 2 years ago
"WHAT discredited philosophy of science?"
Falsificationism.
fiercegallantry 2 years ago
So what you are saying is that something can be scientific if there is no 'hypothetical' way of proving it wrong? ROFL!!!!! You are something else. Thanks.. You made my day.
Falsification means that something CAN be proven wrong. If something cannot be proven wrong, it's not science. Thus, it's not discredited. For instance if we start seeing things float without any reason, than we can assume that gravity has been proven false. Likewise, if we find a 1 billion Year old human skeleton.
verzen 2 years ago
If you don't understand the problems with falsificationism, then you haven't looked hard enough.
This is obviously not the place to teach you philosophy, so go look it up on your own.
fiercegallantry 2 years ago
I HAVE researched it. You cannot prove that something is happening. You can only prove that something is NOT happening. You can only disprove things in science. In effect, by disproving multiple things, you are actually proving things. It is impossible to prove what something indefinately is.
By saying that falsificationism has problems, you have no idea what you're talking about.
verzen 2 years ago 2
"You cannot prove that something is happening. You can only prove that something is NOT happening."
There is a contradiction here.
If you have researched this subject, you have not read enough.
fiercegallantry 2 years ago
WTF? It's NOT a contradiction. You cannot prove that something is happening. For instance, you cannot prove, 100% that evolution is happening the way it is happening. However, if data is not consistent with what you had originally thought, than you have proved that evolution is NOT happening the way that you think it is and you can rule this out.
verzen 2 years ago
"It's NOT a contradiction."
Sure it is. You cannot claim that Proposition A if false without upholding Proposition B (where B = not A).
here is one problem with falsificationism: It doesn't allow you to make positive statements, but you can't claim to have a falsifying experience unless you can claim positive knowledge of the falsifying experience.
Game over.
fiercegallantry 2 years ago 3
All falsificationism states is that something MUST be able to be proven wrong to be considered scientific. What's wrong with that?
verzen 2 years ago
verzen 2 years ago
"What YOU are suggesting is this"
Once again, you have failed to undrestand what I am saying. I am *not* saying anything like that.
fiercegallantry 2 years ago 3
For instance, for the longest time we thought that humans evolved 30,000 years ago. We find a fossil that is 100,000 years old. Evolution is not proven false and as a result not taught. It simply changes and adapts to the new information that is presented.
No matter how many times the hypothesis is proven false, if only the PREDICTIONS are proven false, it doesn't make the entire thing false. To do so would be illogical.
verzen 2 years ago
If false predictions do not falsify the hypothesis, then in what sense in the hypothesis falsifiable?
fiercegallantry 2 years ago 3
If i may step in,
What do you mean the Theory of Gravity is not falsifiable?
I think everyone can agree that the current theory of gravity is much different than when Newton first created it, or even at the time of his death.
The theory changed, as in statements included in the theory were falsified, and then rejected, and thus falsifiable.
Unless you happen to know of this prediction, which the whole of the theory of gravity depends on, and which turned out to be false?
pjnlsn 2 years ago
There is no prediction upon which " the whole of the theory of gravity depends." For this reason, the theory of gravity is not falsifiable.
fiercegallantry 2 years ago 3
So by saying that scientists predict that gravity will remain intact and will never stop being in effect is not a prediction? Don't be dumb! They are predicting the continuous effect of gravity.
verzen 2 years ago
I disagree, It is falsifiable
The Theory of Gravity is essentially:
F = G (m1 * m2) / r^2
with F as Gravitational Force, G the Gravitational Constant, m1 and m2 masses of the two objects, and r the distance between them.
The statement to be falsified is essentially:
The formula of universal gravitation correctly finds gravitational force between any two objects (point masses, for the purposes of discussion)
pjnlsn 2 years ago
The theory, and I get the sense your aware of this, fails to predict the motion of the perihelion of the planetary orbits, particularly mercury.
The results given by the General Theory of Relativity do not suffer from such deficiencies, and Einstein's theory superceded Newton's
As in, the Theory of Gravity was falsified.
pjnlsn 2 years ago
"...the Theory of Gravity was falsified."
No. It was overturned. But it was not falsified by simple experimentation.
Newton's theory, along with simple assumptions, predicted that acceleration due to gravity would be constant at sea level anywhere on Earth. It isn't. Instead of rejecting Newton's theory, the scientific community rejected the auxiliary hypotheses.
fiercegallantry 2 years ago
"No. It was overturned. But it was not falsified by simple experimentation. "
Falsification means that it can be proven wrong. That is all it means. Newtons theory was proven wrong and replaced by an updated theory by Einstein.
If something is NOT falsifiable, it means that no amount of evidence will be able to prove it wrong. Since Newtons theory was proven to not be entirely correct, it was replaced.
verzen 2 years ago
"Falsification means that it can be proven wrong. That is all it means"
Historically, no, that is not 'all' the term has meant. Nor is this definition very meaningful. this definintion glosses over the core issue -- what counts as proof (or disproof).
fiercegallantry 2 years ago 2
But WHY does gravity vary on earth at sea level?
1) Newton was wrong
2) There are other factors to account for, centripetal force, variable distances, causing variations in measurements.
You to conclude #1 is correct while the entire scientific community agrees on #2.
Newton said F=G(M1M2/r^2), NOT "Gravity is the same at sea level". Guess what? When you account for centripetal forces and realize r varies by your location on earth, Newton's formula works out.
This is why you are incorrect.
phricak 2 years ago
The theory of gravity states F = G (m1 * m2) / r^2.
You also state that that Gravity was falsified.
But that formula is still used to this day and successfully explains almost all observed phenomenon.
This is why IT HAS NOT been falsified.
Einstein did not replace Newton, both models are in use today.
Einstein accounts for more factors than Newton, hence it is more accurate, but it DOES still suffer from inaccuracies. Neither model is perfect, but they are both valid and not falsified.
phricak 2 years ago
At that time, Newton's theory was not rejected, despite "falsifying" empirical evidence. Therefore, it was not strictly falsifiable.
Attempts to overcome this kind of shortcoming make the idea of "falsification" more complicated, less well defined, and subject to other logical problems. I do not find any of the so-called solutions that I have seen workable.
fiercegallantry 2 years ago 2
Can you clarify how, "At that time" as you say, Newton's theories were actually falsified?
You say there was empirical evidence at the time that clearly showed Newton was incorrect, but I cannot seem to find any examples of failure, more like a revolutionary success.
Can you show us an example where an object DOES NOT fall to the earth at 9.8m/s^2 in a vacuum?
You keep repeating this notion that Newton was falsified, but have yet to show how. Can you cite an example?
Thanks
phricak 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Enjoy.
/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
phricak 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hey I have a great idea... why don't you keep giving us negative comments so people can't see how lame your argument was?
chyrd 2 years ago
"Cover up" - That is nonsense. Every peer-reviewed scientific paper is clear about it's shortcomings, and if it is not, the peer-review process takes care of that.
Of course it didn't happen EXACTLY the way we think, but pretty darn close, and close enough to count on in daily life.
phricak 2 years ago
"Stronger" - The actual mechanism for evolution has been discovered, genetics. The actual mechanism for Gravity has not. So how can you justify Gravity as "stronger"?
Newtonian mechanics does not even accurately predict the movement of Mercury.
GR leaves open the topics of quantum gravity, singularities, cosmological constants (dark matter & dark energy), the Inflationary epoch, the Pioneer anomaly, etc...
While each theory has it's issues, evolution is far better understood than gravity,
phricak 2 years ago 2
No, gravity is far worse. There is no observed graviton particle, gravity and quantum theory clash big time, and there are GIANT holes in both Newton and Einstein's Theory of Gravity.
Clearly, if the theory of Gravity is outright wrong like Newton, or full of holes and errors like Einstein, Gravity just does not exist, obviously...
phricak 2 years ago 15
woowoo! i can fly!
ow! my leg!
burnhippiesforfuel 2 years ago 12
You are right Morty... the evidence for the theory is lacking, most of it is in fact, gone from the face of the earth forever.
But evolutionary theory is not nearly as lacking as the Theory of Gravity.
Now, that is a stumper. Newton and Einstein had totally different theories about Gravity. Both are seriously flawed and do not explain some really basic observations.
So obviously, Gravity is wrong...right?
I wish more creationists would see the parallel and go jump off something tall...
phricak 2 years ago 3
Absolutely wrong. Molecular biology depends hugely on genetics. The field wouldn't even exist without genetics.
Genetics are the explanation of diversity and with barely any exaggeration, genetics is the largest piece of evidence FOR evolution.
Physiology is also concerned with evolution. They search for variations within species to understand why those changes have occurred and that is also no small part of evolution.
Everything from Neuroscience to biochemistry assumes evolution occurs.
Alpha1Bravo1Charlie1 2 years ago 2
Of course not. You're mixing up the colloquial use of the word theory with the scientific meaning. Theories need evidence by their definition.
If you had evidence to suggest a teacup was in perpetual orbit around the Earth, then we would accept it as something near fact until evidence could be provided to dismiss the a claim. That's the process of science.
Yes, scientists would believe there was a teacup in orbit around the earth if it could be backed up with evidence and couldn't be disproven.
Alpha1Bravo1Charlie1 2 years ago 3
No. There's essentially more evidence for evolution than anything outside of mathematics. Its as close to 100% as u can get.
The only thing that's ever going to replace evolution as a theory is going to incorporate evolution. Evolution has effectively been proven. Yes, I use the word proven.
Almost every field of science agrees with evolution and in 150 years when ANY new discovery at all might have disproven evolution, the opposite has happened. Each piece of new science promotes evolution.
Alpha1Bravo1Charlie1 2 years ago
Evolution has had more criticism than any other theory. Biology is essentially founded upon evolution, which means every biologist has an excellent understanding of evolution. And none of the millions of biologists out there have ever come up with anything to disprove it, which would win them fame, money and nobel prizes.
You could prove it wrong, easily. Find a fossil of a dog on the same stratum as a dinosaur. Find DNA evidence to show we didn't split up from other Vertebrate. Anything.
Alpha1Bravo1Charlie1 2 years ago
Wrong. Completely wrong.
Give me a single example of a scientist who had evidence for anything other than evolution.
You wont. Because you can't. because it doesn't exist.
I'm not saying evolution is definitely true. Nobody is. Nobody. No scientist would ever say that. But as far as our evidence goes, (genetic, fossil record, comparative anatomy etc) there is no other theory which comes close to the amount of evidence evolution has.
Alpha1Bravo1Charlie1 2 years ago
"They need to account for the date (i.e. the living things)"
I'm not with you.
Alpha1Bravo1Charlie1 2 years ago
Actually the point of science is to prove theories wrong. You can't ever prove something actually happened. We can't prove that the atom for example looks anything like what we think it looks like, because that would defy the theory of gravity. But as soon as we can find a better theory then we'll adjust our atomic model immediately.
When we can replace a theory with a better one, we do. We can't 'prove' the theory of gravity. But we accept it until we find a better theory.
Alpha1Bravo1Charlie1 2 years ago 2
That's bullshit.
If someone says "Evolution is not true." Then yes, they're going to almost certainly lose their jobs and be discredited in the scientific community. But that's because they're so bad at science that they ignore the evidence. Essentially making them bad scientists.
If they said "I have reason to believe evolution is not true because of the following evidence" then they wouldn't be rejected.
I'm sick of all these people not understanding the scientific process.
Alpha1Bravo1Charlie1 2 years ago