"Truthification" vs. falsification

  • 15 Replies
  • 7838 Views
?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
"Truthification" vs. falsification
« on: August 20, 2008, 06:22:04 AM »
I read an interesting article earlier today about the merits of moving away from defining something as 'scientific' if it makes falsifiable predictions.  After all, astrology, tarot cards and palm readers make falsifiable predictions, but are not considered to be 'scientific'.

The alternative argument is to build up a body of evidence, and use Bayesian mathematics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability) to weight competing theories based on the probability that they successfully explain the observed phenomena.  This has the advantage over conventional 'falsification'-based science as (ironically) illustrated by the inventor of the technique, Karl Popper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper), by the 'black swan' thought experiment.

The idea is you have a theory that all swans are white - the only way to test that is to look at every single swan, but however many you look at there's always the chance you missed one, so you can never 'prove' the hypothesis.  However, a single black swan observation successfully disproves the theory.  The reason this is problematic for science is that there is no single theory in existence which successfully explains all observed phenomena (this would be a 'Theory of Everything'), so it makes more sense to take all the observed evidence (suspected number of swans, number of white swans observed, number of black swans observed, etc. etc.) and mathematically weight the competing theories based on which one most successfully describes the observations. Now if we see one black swan in a million, the theory that 'all swans are white' is clearly not completely correct, but certainly preferable to 'all swans are black' - the distinction is quantified, not merely qualified.

I believe this technique can be applied to the RE/FE debate... discuss.

Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

*

Sean O'Grady

  • 625
  • Flat Earth Theorist
Re: "Truthification" vs. falsification
« Reply #1 on: August 20, 2008, 06:41:20 AM »
...as (ironically) illustrated by the inventor of the technique, Karl Popper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper), by the 'black swan' thought experiment.

Where exactly is the irony?

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: "Truthification" vs. falsification
« Reply #2 on: August 20, 2008, 06:43:25 AM »
The irony was that Popper was trying to show the merits of falsification over other methods, whereas in fact he perfectly demonstrated its limitations. In my book, that's irony.
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

*

Sean O'Grady

  • 625
  • Flat Earth Theorist
Re: "Truthification" vs. falsification
« Reply #3 on: August 20, 2008, 06:44:46 AM »
The irony was that Popper was trying to show the merits of falsification over other methods, whereas in fact he perfectly demonstrated its limitations. In my book, that's irony.

Okay, take a step back: tell me how did he demonstrate its limitations.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2008, 07:00:48 AM by Tai Lung »

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: "Truthification" vs. falsification
« Reply #4 on: August 20, 2008, 07:02:25 AM »
He demonstrated the limitations of falsification by giving an example where falsification could only be a valid test if you found a black swan. If you never found a black swan, you still haven't proven anything, you have only failed to disprove the 'all swans are white' hypothesis. While falsification has the strength that it allows incorrect theories to be dismissed, it has the weakness that in principle it will dismiss incomplete theories as well, even if they show promise across a wide range of other predictions.

Again, I say it's ironic since in creating a new methodology and scientific principle, he expertly demonstrated how it could never help distinguish between two theories, neither of which explain all observed phenomena, and so also provided the best counter-argument for it's adoption as the core principle of science.
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

*

Sean O'Grady

  • 625
  • Flat Earth Theorist
Re: "Truthification" vs. falsification
« Reply #5 on: August 20, 2008, 07:43:24 AM »
He demonstrated the limitations of falsification by giving an example where falsification could only be a valid test if you found a black swan. If you never found a black swan, you still haven't proven anything, you have only failed to disprove the 'all swans are white' hypothesis. While falsification has the strength that it allows incorrect theories to be dismissed, it has the weakness that in principle it will dismiss incomplete theories as well, even if they show promise across a wide range of other predictions.

Again, I say it's ironic since in creating a new methodology and scientific principle, he expertly demonstrated how it could never help distinguish between two theories, neither of which explain all observed phenomena, and so also provided the best counter-argument for it's adoption as the core principle of science.

I'm still not seeing how he didn't demonstrate the strength of falsification with his thought experiment.

Just to make things clear: I'm not disagreeing with you about the limitations of falsification, nor do I believe that falsification should be the be all and end all but it certainly is a highly useful tool as demonstrated by the swans.

Think about it, if all known swans are white (e.g. no black swans found) you can still cut out a lot of junk:
  • All Swans are black.
  • All Swans are white.
  • All Swans are red.
  • There are black swans, red swans and white swans.
  • There are black swans and white swans.
  • There are only black swans and red swans.
  • Swans are white when they are being watched but are golden when they're not being observed.

Now there's still a lot of junk but falsification has done it's job and rubbished some of the hypotheses. There's a big failing of falsifiability that you mentioned (you may junk a good theory) but I am really, really struggling to understand how this could be demonstrated in his thought experiment.

Oh well, that's just my view on it. If you think the thought experiment demonstrates falsification's limitations then it's understandable you'd find it ironic.

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: "Truthification" vs. falsification
« Reply #6 on: August 20, 2008, 08:06:25 AM »
Yeah of course - please don't misinterpret my OP as an attack on falsification - I appreciate it is a very powerful tool and can allow you to whittle down the number of theories, but what I am saying is that when you have a situation where there are two theories that both appear to be valid some of the time, then falsification would demand that you discard them both and go on with nothing (which is clearly not a very useful scientific method).  My other point was that I found it ironic that one such example could be the very thought experiment used to prove it's strengths - if the 'ToE' was that "There is only one black swan in all of the Universe" and you found it, you would junk that theory that agrees with the ToE 99.999...% of the time.

Other than that, it's still an interesting technique with which to probe the FE/RE debate :)

Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

*

Sean O'Grady

  • 625
  • Flat Earth Theorist
Re: "Truthification" vs. falsification
« Reply #7 on: August 20, 2008, 08:28:08 AM »
Yeah of course - please don't misinterpret my OP as an attack on falsification - I appreciate it is a very powerful tool and can allow you to whittle down the number of theories, but what I am saying is that when you have a situation where there are two theories that both appear to be valid some of the time, then falsification would demand that you discard them both and go on with nothing (which is clearly not a very useful scientific method).  My other point was that I found it ironic that one such example could be the very thought experiment used to prove it's strengths - if the 'ToE' was that "There is only one black swan in all of the Universe" and you found it, you would junk that theory that agrees with the ToE 99.999...% of the time.

Other than that, it's still an interesting technique with which to probe the FE/RE debate :)


Well certainly, but not everything about FE theory is about falsification and there's good evidence for a flat earth. I myself have bunjee jumped off from the edge of the earth, one of the reasons why I discount theory that says the earth is an infinite plane.

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: "Truthification" vs. falsification
« Reply #8 on: August 20, 2008, 09:09:38 AM »
I myself have bunjee jumped off from the edge of the earth, one of the reasons why I discount theory that says the earth is an infinite plane.

I wonder what weighting Bayesian maths would give that evidence...? :)
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

*

Sean O'Grady

  • 625
  • Flat Earth Theorist
Re: "Truthification" vs. falsification
« Reply #9 on: August 20, 2008, 09:27:53 AM »
I'd say it'd be weighted very highly, the vast majority of the people in the world have done it which is why the vast majority of the people in the world know the earth is flat.

Re: "Truthification" vs. falsification
« Reply #10 on: August 20, 2008, 09:33:57 AM »
Ur so wrong, there is no edge, just endless lollipop forest.  You're just lying cos you want to keep the lollipops to yourself.  Well to late, the secret is out! 
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Video proof that the Earth is flat!

Run run, as fast as you can, you can't catch me cos I'm in the lollipop forest and you can't get there!

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: "Truthification" vs. falsification
« Reply #11 on: August 20, 2008, 09:41:04 AM »
Ok Tai, I'm not sure what you're saying here, that the vast majority of people in the world have bungee jumped off the edge? ???
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

*

Sean O'Grady

  • 625
  • Flat Earth Theorist
Re: "Truthification" vs. falsification
« Reply #12 on: August 20, 2008, 10:01:01 AM »
Ok Tai, I'm not sure what you're saying here, that the vast majority of people in the world have bungee jumped off the edge? ???

Yes, also lolz at trollz is telling the truth (sort of). Anybody you know who denies bunjee jumping from the edge and eating the lollipops is lying to you to try and stop you having so much fun. The lollipops are on the other side of the earth, that's why you need to bunjee jump to get them.

I know you won't believe me that's why I'm telling you this, you pose no threat to my lollipops.

Re: "Truthification" vs. falsification
« Reply #13 on: August 20, 2008, 10:48:07 AM »
There is proof of the lollipop forest.   Look at this: 

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/64/211789792_cad3465c0b.jpg

this man has clearly been to the lollipop forest too:

http://windowseat.ca/images/pimp_lolly.jpg

I'm not worried about the lollipops running out, there's enough for everyone, I hope it doesn't get too busy and touristy now the secret is out. 
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Video proof that the Earth is flat!

Run run, as fast as you can, you can't catch me cos I'm in the lollipop forest and you can't get there!

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: "Truthification" vs. falsification
« Reply #14 on: August 20, 2008, 01:12:03 PM »
Tsk, you guys::) If I knew you were talking about THAT lollipop forest I'd never have argued with you! I like the sherbert ones, but you need a really strong bungee rope to get back up after eating them.

Now, if anyone else would like to comment on the OP...........
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: "Truthification" vs. falsification
« Reply #15 on: August 20, 2008, 02:58:45 PM »
As far as I understand, the big problem with falsification is that it places too much emphasis in the absolute "proof", the one observation that makes the theory crumble. Science takes a less radical view, where every theory has a range of acceptable applications and an acceptable amount of imprecision in the predictions, and where the theory is accepted by weighing its power to produce predictions, not only its lack of proof that it is wrong.

"Theories" like any one of the impersonations of the FET live through the illusion that since every theory fails, then any dumb opinion has the same standing as real scientific theories. Also astrology, through the creative use of statistics, does show some appearance of having passed the test of falsifiability, but it does not pass the test of scientific soundness since no experiment is really repeatable.

Lets be clear about some terminology: a theory is falsifiable if all possible experiments and observations asserted  by the theory are predictable through the use of the theory. In science the absolute definition is not relevant, since it is impossible to do that many experiments, but a partial result is good enough if there are no competing theories that make better predictions.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2008, 03:00:27 PM by trig »