Author Topic: Does science need falsifiability.  (Read 2708 times)

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33203

jeremyp

  • Admin Support
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32506
  • Blurb
    • Sincere Flattery: A blog about computing
Re: Does science need falsifiability.
« Reply #1 on: November 13, 2016, 11:49:59 AM »
Careful now......

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/02/falsifiability/
FTA

Quote
Could a theory that provides an elegant and accurate account of the world around us—even if its predictions can’t be tested by today’s experiments, or tomorrow’s—still “count” as science?
The answer is, of course, no. The use of the word "accurate" implies it has been tested to find out if its account of the world around us is accurate to some approximation.
This post and all of JeremyP's posts words certified 100% divinely inspired* -- signed God.
*Platinum infallibility package, terms and conditions may apply

Sriram

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8253
    • Spirituality & Science
Re: Does science need falsifiability.
« Reply #2 on: November 17, 2016, 09:29:05 AM »
Careful now......

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/02/falsifiability/

Science, its scope and methodologies were outlined mostly in the 19th and 20th Centuries. There were certain assumptions about the nature of the universe and based on these, the manner in which things can be tested and understood were fixed.

It is becoming increasingly clear that these assumptions are no longer valid. So...obviously science (as defined in earlier times) is no longer equipped to even observe let alone infer and analyse all aspects of the universe. I again have to give the example of the microscope that is very useful to observe certain phenomena but is useless to observe certain other phenomena.

Falsifiability is one such factor.

(Refer the biocentrism thread)

Sebastian Toe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7719
Re: Does science need falsifiability.
« Reply #3 on: November 17, 2016, 11:17:00 AM »
I again have to give the example of the microscope that is very useful to observe certain phenomena but is useless to observe certain other phenomena.

That explains why my attempts at viewing Jupiter with my brand new microscope were not very successful.
Thanks for that Sriram, I'll not embarrass myself by trying to get a refund under the guarantee now!  ::)
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends.'
Albert Einstein

Udayana

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5478
  • βε ηερε νοω
    • The Byrds - My Back Pages
Re: Does science need falsifiability.
« Reply #4 on: November 17, 2016, 11:20:52 AM »
Science, its scope and methodologies were outlined mostly in the 19th and 20th Centuries. There were certain assumptions about the nature of the universe and based on these, the manner in which things can be tested and understood were fixed.

It is becoming increasingly clear that these assumptions are no longer valid. So...obviously science (as defined in earlier times) is no longer equipped to even observe let alone infer and analyse all aspects of the universe. I again have to give the example of the microscope that is very useful to observe certain phenomena but is useless to observe certain other phenomena.

Falsifiability is one such factor.

(Refer the biocentrism thread)
But if an idea is not falsifiable, of what practical use can it be?
Ah, but I was so much older then ... I'm younger than that now

Dicky Underpants

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4370
Re: Does science need falsifiability.
« Reply #5 on: December 12, 2016, 04:30:08 PM »
Science, its scope and methodologies were outlined mostly in the 19th and 20th Centuries. There were certain assumptions about the nature of the universe and based on these, the manner in which things can be tested and understood were fixed.

It is becoming increasingly clear that these assumptions are no longer valid. So...obviously science (as defined in earlier times) is no longer equipped to even observe let alone infer and analyse all aspects of the universe. I again have to give the example of the microscope that is very useful to observe certain phenomena but is useless to observe certain other phenomena.

Falsifiability is one such factor.

(Refer the biocentrism thread)

It is more a question of paradigms, rather than the scope of science and its methodologies. The great eminence grise of former times was of course Isaac Newton, and most scientists thought his ideas were just about beyond challenging. This is beautifully illustrated in the research into the of the nature of our solar system, following on from the discovery of Uranus. Uranus' orbit seemed to show some idiosyncracies which prompted two possible main explanations: either there was some other planetary body perturbing the orbit of Uranus, or Newton's principles of gravitation might be wrong. Scientists were keen to seek out the first option, because of the horrific implications of the second alternative. They were proved right, and the planetary body discovered was called Neptune.

However, in the 19th century, a similar problem arose, concerning the orbit of Mercury. Again, there was a frantic search for another planetary body (they pre-named it Vulcan), knowing that the alternative to such an unknown mass closer to the sun would be to question the Newtonian explanation. In this case, however, it was the Newtonian explanation that was wrong, as was eventually demonstrated by Einstein's ideas - and a large paradigm shift occurred.
This however has done nothing to shift the scope and methodologies of modern science - it has of course broadened our insights into reality though.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2016, 04:46:04 PM by Dicky Underpants »
"Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.”

Le Bon David

Walter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4463
Re: Does science need falsifiability.
« Reply #6 on: December 12, 2016, 06:29:34 PM »
As soon as you see the word 'paradigm' in sentence, beware .its usually some smartarse trying to show how clever he is

Sebastian Toe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7719
Re: Does science need falsifiability.
« Reply #7 on: December 12, 2016, 07:24:46 PM »
As soon as you see the word 'paradigm' in sentence, beware .its usually some smartarse trying to show how clever he is
Well, you just used it!  ;)
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends.'
Albert Einstein

Walter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4463
Re: Does science need falsifiability.
« Reply #8 on: December 12, 2016, 08:18:49 PM »

Sebastian Toe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7719
Re: Does science need falsifiability.
« Reply #9 on: December 12, 2016, 09:01:30 PM »
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends.'
Albert Einstein

Sriram

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8253
    • Spirituality & Science
Re: Does science need falsifiability.
« Reply #10 on: December 13, 2016, 09:17:24 AM »
It is more a question of paradigms, rather than the scope of science and its methodologies. The great eminence grise of former times was of course Isaac Newton, and most scientists thought his ideas were just about beyond challenging. This is beautifully illustrated in the research into the of the nature of our solar system, following on from the discovery of Uranus. Uranus' orbit seemed to show some idiosyncracies which prompted two possible main explanations: either there was some other planetary body perturbing the orbit of Uranus, or Newton's principles of gravitation might be wrong. Scientists were keen to seek out the first option, because of the horrific implications of the second alternative. They were proved right, and the planetary body discovered was called Neptune.

However, in the 19th century, a similar problem arose, concerning the orbit of Mercury. Again, there was a frantic search for another planetary body (they pre-named it Vulcan), knowing that the alternative to such an unknown mass closer to the sun would be to question the Newtonian explanation. In this case, however, it was the Newtonian explanation that was wrong, as was eventually demonstrated by Einstein's ideas - and a large paradigm shift occurred.
This however has done nothing to shift the scope and methodologies of modern science - it has of course broadened our insights into reality though.


Its not about Newton or Einstein, its about whether the restricted methodologies of science are good enough to investigate all phenomena in the world. And if something cannot be investigated using the current methodologies of Science, should it be dismissed as imaginary or simply as logically impossible and therefore not a part of reality?

The point is that Science is merely a tool. A tool should not become so dominant that it will decide what can and cannot exist in the real world.

We are tying ourselves up with mathematics, logic, methodologies and such other things which could themselves prevent an accurate perception of reality.

In this connection some scientists in recent times seem to be thinking laterally...which is a good thing (perhaps not for science as we know it today...but for a better understanding of reality). Check out the thread on Biocentrism.

Also, here is a link provided by NS in another thread.  Very good!

http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/is-humanity-losing-faith-in-reason-1.2808930?platform=hootsuite
« Last Edit: December 13, 2016, 09:36:47 AM by Sriram »

Walter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4463
Re: Does science need falsifiability.
« Reply #11 on: December 13, 2016, 10:07:21 AM »

Its not about Newton or Einstein, its about whether the restricted methodologies of science are good enough to investigate all phenomena in the world. And if something cannot be investigated using the current methodologies of Science, should it be dismissed as imaginary or simply as logically impossible and therefore not a part of reality?

The point is that Science is merely a tool. A tool should not become so dominant that it will decide what can and cannot exist in the real world.

We are tying ourselves up with mathematics, logic, methodologies and such other things which could themselves prevent an accurate perception of reality.

In this connection some scientists in recent times seem to be thinking laterally...which is a good thing (perhaps not for science as we know it today...but for a better understanding of reality). Check out the thread on Biocentrism.

Also, here is a link provided by NS in another thread.  Very good!

http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/is-humanity-losing-faith-in-reason-1.2808930?platform=hootsuite
when you say 'all the phenomena in the world' are you implying there are other phenomena that science cannot explain and actually exists . If so what is this phenomena, please give some examples .

torridon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10209
Re: Does science need falsifiability.
« Reply #12 on: December 13, 2016, 11:03:21 AM »

Its not about Newton or Einstein, its about whether the restricted methodologies of science are good enough to investigate all phenomena in the world. And if something cannot be investigated using the current methodologies of Science, should it be dismissed as imaginary or simply as logically impossible and therefore not a part of reality?

The point is that Science is merely a tool. A tool should not become so dominant that it will decide what can and cannot exist in the real world.

We are tying ourselves up with mathematics, logic, methodologies and such other things which could themselves prevent an accurate perception of reality.

We are constantly evolving new tools in science as technology improves. Having said that there are some areas where theoreticians are working way ahead of experimentalists - some hypotheses in string theory would need a particle accelerator the size of the Milky Way to test out for instance. That doesn't translate into abandoning rigour or falsifiability across the board however - it just means that some areas of theory are going to remain speculative in the absence of empirical evidence.

Sriram

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8253
    • Spirituality & Science
Re: Does science need falsifiability.
« Reply #13 on: December 13, 2016, 11:23:17 AM »
We are constantly evolving new tools in science as technology improves. Having said that there are some areas where theoreticians are working way ahead of experimentalists - some hypotheses in string theory would need a particle accelerator the size of the Milky Way to test out for instance. That doesn't translate into abandoning rigour or falsifiability across the board however - it just means that some areas of theory are going to remain speculative in the absence of empirical evidence.


Exactly!  Truth need not be amenable to investigation by our technology. Technology is a human construct. It is merely an extension of ourselves.

We cannot even imagine what eleven dimensions mean. So..why do we imagine that we can decide what can and cannot exist?! 

Walter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4463
Re: Does science need falsifiability.
« Reply #14 on: December 13, 2016, 12:14:02 PM »

Exactly!  Truth need not be amenable to investigation by our technology. Technology is a human construct. It is merely an extension of ourselves.

We cannot even imagine what eleven dimensions mean. So..why do we imagine that we can decide what can and cannot exist?!
I think the mistake you make is to equate your brain power with the people who work in the fields you only know the names of.

Sriram

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8253
    • Spirituality & Science
Re: Does science need falsifiability.
« Reply #15 on: December 13, 2016, 12:18:43 PM »
I think the mistake you make is to equate your brain power with the people who work in the fields you only know the names of.


Oh...thanks, Walter!