Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

What Is "falsifiable"?


  • Please log in to reply
96 replies to this topic

#86 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

    412.63 ppm

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1241 posts

Posted 03 May 2018 - 10:56 AM

If i made such a claim, then I was wrong.  Falsifiability is distinctly different from verifying.  Read the gd wikipedia article on the problem of induction.  Verifiability is not the same as falsifiability.

 

"In order to falsify the theory that a red swan exists you must be able to present the entire set of red swans everywhere in the universe and show that NO red swan exists."  No.  A red swans exists is a positive claim.  It can be shown to be false by failing to observe a red swan.  There are no red swans is a negative claim.  It can only be shown to be false by observing that no swans are red.

 

This isn't a matter of belief.  I hate Donald Rumsfeld with every ounce of my being, but his claim that "The evidence of absence is not absence of evidence" is accurate, and it is precisely why the concept of falsfiability exists.  Of course, had he followed through with the implications of this claim, history might be different.

 

Iraq does not have WMDs is an unfalsifiable claim.  Iraq does have WMDs is a falsifiable claim.  These statements are true regardless of our knowledge of Iraqi weapons.


Edited by JMJones0424, 03 May 2018 - 11:10 AM.


#87 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1060 posts

Posted 03 May 2018 - 11:20 AM

If i made such a claim, then I was wrong.  Falsifiability is distinctly different from verifying.  Read the gd wikipedia article on the problem of induction.  Verifiability is not the same as falsifiability.

 

"In order to falsify the theory that a red swan exists you must be able to present the entire set of red swans everywhere in the universe and show that NO red swan exists."  No.  A red swans exists is a positive claim.  it can be shown to be false by failing to observe a red swan.  There are no red swans is a negative claim.  It can only be shown to be false by observing that no swans are red.

 

This isn't a matter of belief.  I hate Donald Rumsfeld with every ounce of my being, but his claim that "The evidence of absence is not absence of evidence" is accurate, and it is precisely why the concept of falsfiability exists.  Of course, had he followed through with the implications of this claim, history might be different.

 

Iraq does not have WMDs is an unfalsifiable claim.  Iraq does have WMDs is a falsifiable claim.  These statements are true regardless of our knowledge of Iraqi weapons.

 

 

IF? :D

 

You can't even bring yourself to admit that you wrote what is in your quote?

 

And . . you are still wrong. but still hopeless.

 

You say " it can be shown to be wrong by failing to observe a red swan"

 

Do you understand that you will need to present the entire set of all existent swans to show this?

 

I have been talking about the universe, to make a point, but there is no need to go that far!

 

Please show me the entire set  of swans in just the USA and show me there are no reds among them. Do you think you can do it?

 

The red swan, if it exists, can be anywhere! The theory that there is a red swan is unfalsifiable because there is no possible way to examine the entire set of all swans to falsify it!

 

You should read the same references you are telling everyone else to read, because you clearly do not understand any of this.



#88 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

    412.63 ppm

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1241 posts

Posted 03 May 2018 - 11:34 AM

OK, I was wrong.  ****, I'm frequently wrong.  Chances are good that I'm wrong in a lot of  statements I make.

 

Read the wikipedia article on the problem of induction.  A red swan exists is falsifiable not because red swans may or may not exist, but because it is possible to show the claim to be false, regardless of the existence of swans.  No red swan exists is unfalsifiable because failing to find a red swan, you still can't show the claim to be false until you observe all swans. Positive claim versus negative claim.

 

This isn't a personal claim that I have any stake in.  I may have made contradictory statements in this thread.  I am not infallible.  Please, point out every instance where I made a claim that wasn't falsifiable but I claimed it was.  This doesn't change what falsifiability is.

 

I will re-read the wikipedia articles cited in this thread, as I hope you do as well.  Please cite instances that support your understanding of falsifiability that differs from mine.



#89 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

    412.63 ppm

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1241 posts

Posted 03 May 2018 - 11:51 AM

There is a non-zero chance that every claim I make is an incorrect description of reality.  I am an idiot.  Please, offer a better explanation of falsifiability.



#90 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 03 May 2018 - 02:13 PM

Among other things, JM, you are still confusing the implications of quantifiers, which I went to some length to explain to you in other posts (which you just ignored).

 

All and None are universal.  You need find only one exception to the claim to falsify it.

 

"Some, "a few," one, etc. are not universal. They are quite limited in the claim being made and therefore often virtually impossible to falsify.

 

"There is at least one red swan somewhere in the universe" cannot, as a practical matter, be falsified. But, as Popeye noted, it would take only one case to verify (as opposed to falsify) it.

 

But that also depends in part on the extent of the set you are making claims about.  Ignoring bastards, it would be relatively easy to both verify and falsify such limited clams as:

 

1.  All my siblings are males.

2.  Some of my siblings are females

3.  None of my siblings are males.

4. Etc.

 

Why?  Because it is a very small set, so whatever claim is made about it, that claim can be completely checked pretty easily. 

 


Edited by Moronium, 03 May 2018 - 02:28 PM.


#91 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

    412.63 ppm

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1241 posts

Posted 03 May 2018 - 02:17 PM

Consult wikipedia moron.



#92 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 03 May 2018 - 02:31 PM

Among other things, JM, you are still confusing the implications of quantifiers, which I went to some length to explain to you in other posts (which you just ignored).

 

All and None are universal.  You need find only one exception to the claim to falsify it.

 

"Some, "a few," one, etc. are not universal. They are quite limited in the claim being made and therefore often virtually impossible to falsify.

 

"There is at least one red swan somewhere in the universe" cannot, as a practical matter, be falsified. But, as Popeye noted, it would take only one case to verify (as opposed to falsify) it.

 

But that also depends in part on the extent of the set you are making claims about.  Ignoring bastards, it would be relatively easy to both verify and falsify such limited clams as:

 

1.  All my siblings are males.

2.  Some of my siblings are females

3.  None of my siblings are males.

4. Etc.

 

Why?  Because it is a very small set, so whatever claim is made about it, that claim can be completely checked pretty easily. 

 

P.S., the only reason I responded to you at all is because you finally backed off from the arrogant, belligerent and defensive attitude you adopted and expressed a little humility.

 

Now I see that I spoke too soon.  Bye, fool

 


Edited by Moronium, 03 May 2018 - 02:32 PM.


#93 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 03 May 2018 - 02:35 PM

It's obvious that somebody could sit you down and read a wiki article to you 25,000 times and you still wouldn't understand a word of it.   But you would still convince yourself that you understood it all, even more than anyone else possibly could, that's for sure.


Edited by Moronium, 03 May 2018 - 02:38 PM.


#94 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

    412.63 ppm

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1241 posts

Posted 03 May 2018 - 03:30 PM

Consult wikipedia moron.



#95 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

    412.63 ppm

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1241 posts

Posted 03 May 2018 - 04:43 PM

1.  All my siblings are males.

2.  Some of my siblings are females

3.  None of my siblings are males.

4. Etc.

 

Why?  Because it is a very small set, so whatever claim is made about it, that claim can be completely checked pretty easily. 

 

I don't know what the f you are trying to prove, but I do know you are trying to deduce truth.  If it is your argument that knowledge is only that which can be deduced, then you have no business discussing inductive reasoning.

 

You have provided a string of contradictory statements.  I do not understand how this is supposed to be revelatory.

All my siblings are male is a falsifiable claim.

Some of my siblings are female is a falsifiable claim, as it is equivalent to one of my siblings is a female.

None of my siblings are male is unfalsifiable because REDACTED. Or is it because there are no red sheep.  Stop ****ing blue geese?  Goddamn, I wish there was an easy way to determine this claim was unfalsifiable while all the others weren't.

 

Maybe, and correct me if I'm wrong here, it's the fact that you claimed that NONE of your siblings are males.

 

Maybe, holy ****, I'm starting to feel faint, maybe a claim that there is not an instance is a claim that is not falsifiable.

 

Let me regroup for a minute and consult wikipedia.

 

I don't know if REDACTED, but I'm pretty sure you're full of ****.


Edited by GAHD, 31 December 2018 - 01:24 PM.
Community Guidelines


#96 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

    412.63 ppm

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1241 posts

Posted 03 May 2018 - 05:17 PM

Do you need a definition of none?  You made a claim that there was not one in all the universe that met your criteria.  How would you propose that we test such a claim?  I could not have asked you to make the difference more obvious.

 

If the claim is that all of your siblings are male, we can show it to be false by observing a sibling that is not male.  If the claim is that some of your siblings are female, we can show it to be false by observing that all of your siblings are male.  If the claim is that none of your siblings are male, then in order to show it to be false, we must observe all possible siblings and show that none of them are male.  This claim is not falsifiable.  If you would read the f'ing wikipedia articles you cite, you would know this to be the case.  Regardless, the difference in this claim versus the other two is in what it describes.  All and some are falsifiable, while none and no is not.


Edited by JMJones0424, 03 May 2018 - 05:26 PM.


#97 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1060 posts

Posted 04 May 2018 - 04:09 AM

I don't know what the f you are trying to prove, but I do know you are trying to deduce truth.  If it is your argument that knowledge is only that which can be deduced, then you have no business discussing inductive reasoning.

 

You have provided a string of contradictory statements.  I do not understand how this is supposed to be revelatory.

All my siblings are male is a falsifiable claim.

Some of my siblings are female is a falsifiable claim, as it is equivalent to one of my siblings is a female.

None of my siblings are male is unfalsifiable because your mom is a whore. Or is it because there are no red sheep.  Stop ****ing blue geese?  Goddamn, I wish there was an easy way to determine this claim was unfalsifiable while all the others weren't.

 

Maybe, and correct me if I'm wrong here, it's the fact that you claimed that NONE of your siblings are males.

 

Maybe, holy ****, I'm starting to feel faint, maybe a claim that there is not an instance is a claim that is not falsifiable.

 

Let me regroup for a minute and consult wikipedia.

 

I don't know if your mom is a whore, but I'm pretty sure you're full of ****.

 

 

I reported your post.

 

As I said before, you are wrong, but that isn't the problem. Now you are wrong AND insulting as in "your mom is a whore"

 

That is just totally unwarranted.

 

If you are incapable of making a coherent argument as it seems, at least stop with the insults.

 

Probably the mods will take no action since you are one of the Kool KIds but maybe I can convince you to tone it down a bit?