a theory is only good insofar as it is falsifiable

[datasuspect]

theories seek better explanations over time with multiple tests by the scientific community to determine where it can be falsified.

they don't necessarily seek the truth or falsity of discrete facts.

although certain "proof" of claims (whether they are true or false) coincide with the explanatory power a theory is supposed to provide.

that is, if i remember correctly

[DangerDave921]

1. OK

But what exactly are you referencing?

[datasuspect]

3. just noticed people arguing about what a theory is

and i vaguely remember what a theory actually is.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. You don't need to argue philosophically over the term "theory"

when it comes to the cintelligent designreationism debate.

It's a red herring.

[datasuspect]

4. i wasn't arguing

i was providing a definition.

your mileage may vary, but i still remember the bornagin "brand" thing, so i'll let you wiggle and be silly.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. Huh?

Brand?

What?

[datasuspect]

7. in plain english

i don't take you seriously, but i don't ignore people either.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. That's fine.

But you've really failed to addressed my point.

There's the rub.

[datasuspect]

10. my initial point was in plain english too

i don't understand why you are contentious for the sake of being contentious.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. Right back at you.

My point is that there's no reason to argue semantics when it comes to Creationists, as they're not interested in honest debate.

[datasuspect]

16. then don't argue with them

i don't know what to tell ya, bub.

and you can't argue with creationists, bushistas and other reactionaries: it's like trying to corral pigeons - they end up making too much noise and getting shit everywhere.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Hell, we can't even "prove" that we exist.

"I dreamed I was a butterfly, flitting around in the sky; then I awoke. Now I wonder: Am I a man who dreamt of being a butterfly, or am I a butterfly dreaming that I am a man?" - Chuang Tsu

[ThatPoetGuy]

9. Nope.

A theory is only SCIENTIFIC insofar as it is falsifiable.

Most of the time.

First off, I have a theory that my girlfriend loves me. She says she does. It's a good theory. It's not falsifiable.

Second of all, naturalism is a different approach to science. The theory of evolution is a good example of naturalism. It was around for a long time before it was falsifiable; it became falsifiable only in 1980, when Mt. Helens erupted, and scientists were able to make hypotheses regarding generations of microorganisms; their theories held up to the test.

Up until that time, the theory of evolution was not falsifiable.

How does one create a falsifying test for the Big Bang Theory? The Big Bang is also naturalism. If you observe how things are, and create a theory of how things happened, then you're in the territory of naturalism, which uses a modified scientific method.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. "How does one create a falsifying test for the Big Bang Theory?"

Find the absence of a cosmic microwave background.

Find an object older than the Big Bang.

Find that the universe is not or has not been inflating.

These would falisfy the Big Bang. The Big Bang is good science.

"it became falsifiable only in 1980, when Mt. Helens erupted, and scientists were able to make hypotheses regarding generations of microorganisms"

LOLWUT?

[datasuspect]

13. in terms of scientific inquiry where it concerns your girlfriend

one could set up a situation where someone hits on her and she responds favorably: that would be one instance where enormous holes could be shot in your theory.

[SidDithers]

15. I already did that...

and lets just say that there are HUGE holes in his theory :evilgrin:

Sid

[ThatPoetGuy]

17. HEY!

Watch yerself, Sid....

Nice.

[Brian Fearn]

14. Love is falsifiable...

"First off, I have a theory that my girlfriend loves me. She says she does. It's a good theory. It's not falsifiable."

Sure it is. If she started ignoring you all the time, then started insulting you, then told you that she hated you, then cheated on you a few times, then tried to chop you up with an ax, that would be evidence in favor of the theory that she no longer loved you, since people don't do those sorts of thing to their loved ones.

If you still wanted to believe that she had some kind of "love" inside of her in spite of unrelentingly hateful and immoral actions, then you would be pretty foolish.

"It was around for a long time before it was falsifiable; it became falsifiable only in 1980, when Mt. Helens erupted"

If you think that evolution was unfalsifiable until 1980, then I am sorry to inform you that you have no clue what evolution is.

[ThatPoetGuy]

18. "If you think that evolution was unfalsifiable until 1980"

Give me an example of a falsifiable hypothesis regarding evolution. A hypothesis needs to be predictive; you have to say, "I think X will occur under these circumstances," and then set out the circumstances and observe X occurring or failing to occur.

[Brian Fearn]

20. Oh boy

Here are some examples:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html

[ThatPoetGuy]

25. Do you know what "falsifiable" means?

From your link:

"* Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000)."

A lack of fossil and genetic evidence would not have falsified the theory of evolution.

"* Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000)."

An absence of higher mutation rates would not have falsified the theory of evolution.

"* Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" (Mallatt and Chen 2003)."

Had the fossil evidence not held up, it would not have falsified the theory of evolution.

None of the examples given, by themselves, could have falsified the theory of evolution. If the hypotheses had been proven false, it would not have forced a radical re-evaluation of evolutionary theory.

[Brian Fearn]

27. Well, there is a point to be made here...

Which is that "evolution" is less a single hypothesis than it is a collection of hypotheses.

"A lack of fossil and genetic evidence would not have falsified the theory of evolution."

It would certainly falsify the theory of common descent, which is part of the theory of evolution as currently conceived. A complete lack of fossil evidence would force a re-evaluation of the ability of evolution to account for current diversity of life. I don't see how you can contend otherwise...

[ThatPoetGuy]

28. I could contend otherwise...

by saying there could be other causes for the lack of fossil data.

Let me be clear here: I doubt the theory of evolution as little as I doubt the theory of gravity. Which is to say, I'm pretty darn certain that evolution is the way things work.

Michel Foucault, studying how theories work, determined that there are fields of science that follow a modified version of the scientific theory. He called these fields "naturalism." Naturalism closely observes the way things are and asks the question "How did things get to be this way?" A naturalist then carries out a series of mental experiments, "Suppose things work like this theory, how would things have gotten to be the way they are?" The finest example of this is Darwin in the Galapagos, observing the variety of flora and fauna for two decades, wondering how things came to be that way.

Foucault also pointed out that linguistics and economics work on the same principles as naturalism, and he tried to create a new kind of history-writing based on the same principles.

The link you sent me also says, "If evolution's low power to make future predictions keeps it from being a science, then some other fields of study cease to be sciences, too, especially archeology and astronomy."

Archeology and astronomy might be examples of naturalism.

Just to reiterate: I am NOT saying that evolution, astronomy, etc., are unscientific or foolish or unverified or anything like that. I'm saying that they are not the same kind of theory as "if I heat water to the boiling point at STP, bubbles will form."

[Brian Fearn]

29. There always ad hoc revisions that can be made...

You could have a theory that a diet of ten hot fudge sundaes a day would help you lose weight and refuse to believe the increasing numbers on the scale by saying that some gravitational anomaly in the room was warping the measurement.

:-P

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

30. Primate fossils in cambrian era strata.

There. That would have falsified Darwin's claims.

[Mike03]

23. A lot of "Ideas" are unfalsifiable until certain dates, at which time they

become scientific theories. That is the dispute in theoretical physics.

Ideas, Concepts, Educated Guesses graduate to the level of being Theories when they can be either verified or falsified.

EDIT:

Some examples: The existence of superpartners to the particle zoo in the Standard Model.

The existence of the Higgs Field, which can potentially be discovered by the Large Hadron Collider when it goes online next year.

The singularity of the coupling constants with respect to supersymmetry.

[Brian Fearn]

24. Yeah, but evolutionary ideas were falsifiable long before 1980 (NT)

[Mike03]

26. You may be correct; I just don't know.

All of the current String Theories are unfalsifiable; that is why more and more theoreticians are qualifying the use of the term "Theory" in describing what String Theory is capable of telling us about the natural world.

[Mike03]

22. I disagree with almost everything you write here

The Big Bang is eminently falsifiable. It would take forever to spell it out, but many of Einstein's predictions which were not testable or even well understood in the early 1900s led to dozens of testable predictions. These predictions were tested and found to be accurate to a degree of decimal points. It's uncanny.

As for your "theory" about your girlfriend, that doesn't meet the lowest possible criteria for a theory. It's just a thought you have.

[Mike03]

19. Thank you for this post

This issue came up yesterday.

I don't know why it's so difficult for people to grasp the necessity of being able to prove or disprove a theory. When the definition of science change for most Americans?

This is a huge issue now in theoretical physics, where the Anthropic Principle and the so-called "Landscape" acceptance of a ridiculous number of string vacua as plausible universes has divided the entire community.

String Theory is an example of a "Theory" that does not even rise to the level of being able to make predictions that can be tested, proved, or disproved.

Falsifiablity is essential; otherwise, any theory is as good as any other theory, and science becomes farcical, third-rate philosophy, no proof required.

The same goes for M theory variations involving D-Branes, multiple universes and so forth.

Recommend.

[Mike03]

21. I doubt most people know the meaning of the word "Theory"

or understand that a "Theory" is much higher up on the hierarchy of science than, say, a hypothesis, neat guess or fanciful supposition.