Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The Weakness Of Falsifying Theories?


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 hazelm

hazelm

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1081 posts

Posted 16 May 2019 - 05:47 AM

https://www.scienced...90515144008.htm

 

Scientific reproducibility does not always equate to truth.  Will this settle some ongoing arguments?



#2 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2827 posts

Posted 16 May 2019 - 07:42 AM

https://www.scienced...90515144008.htm

 

Scientific reproducibility does not always equate to truth.  Will this settle some ongoing arguments?

Next, they will be announcing research that shows the Pope is Catholic. 

 

The article (not the paper it is written up from) refers to a concept I do not recognise called "scientific truth". That quibble aside, the rest of it seems to conclude that findings corroborated via a variety of independent methods reach the eventual conclusion faster than simply replicating the same experiment. I should have thought that was fairly obvious. But I suppose it is worth something,  to some people, to have a mathematical model that also says so.   


  • hazelm likes this

#3 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 790 posts

Posted 16 May 2019 - 08:34 AM

https://www.scienced...90515144008.htm

 

Scientific reproducibility does not always equate to truth.  Will this settle some ongoing arguments?

 

 Some times it does and sometimes it doesn't. How will that help settle arguments or discussions?

 

Occams razor is one of the best tools for getting at the truth, combined with healthy scepticism. Don't believe everything you read :)

 

In fact it is safer to be sceptical about everything, especially on this forum :)



#4 hazelm

hazelm

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1081 posts

Posted 16 May 2019 - 01:13 PM

Next, they will be announcing research that shows the Pope is Catholic. 

 

The article (not the paper it is written up from) refers to a concept I do not recognise called "scientific truth". That quibble aside, the rest of it seems to conclude that findings corroborated via a variety of independent methods reach the eventual conclusion faster than simply replicating the same experiment. I should have thought that was fairly obvious. But I suppose it is worth something,  to some people, to have a mathematical model that also says so.   

Like this one?  https://www.scienced...90515115831.htm

 

I could swear I read this at least ten, if not 15 years ago.  I have been wondering if my developing thoughts about Science Daily's reports are seen by others or if it is just me.  Many never seem to give any real "meat".  Many are "old hat".   A few really are good.  U stuck with it for that. 


Edited by hazelm, 16 May 2019 - 01:14 PM.


#5 hazelm

hazelm

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1081 posts

Posted 16 May 2019 - 01:20 PM

Next, they will be announcing research that shows the Pope is Catholic. 

 

The article (not the paper it is written up from) refers to a concept I do not recognise called "scientific truth". That quibble aside, the rest of it seems to conclude that findings corroborated via a variety of independent methods reach the eventual conclusion faster than simply replicating the same experiment. I should have thought that was fairly obvious. But I suppose it is worth something,  to some people, to have a mathematical model that also says so.   

I am sorry, exchemist.  I have no idea how my reply to the above ended up on my own post (see somewhere below.)



#6 hazelm

hazelm

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1081 posts

Posted 16 May 2019 - 01:29 PM

 Some times it does and sometimes it doesn't. How will that help settle arguments or discussions?

 

Occams razor is one of the best tools for getting at the truth, combined with healthy scepticism. Don't believe everything you read :)

 

In fact it is safer to be sceptical about everything, especially on this forum :)

I am the world's greatest sceptic - in all except science.  I missed out on so much that I am never sure there isn't something I missed.  So I sit tight and listen.  I rather liked that article, though, for another reason.  Many of us - myself included - affirm that the word "falsifiability" is being misused, given its basic meaning.  Now we have an article that uses a different word - reproducibility.  They do mean the same in scientific research, don't they?  Or do they?  I can see it two ways.


Edited by hazelm, 16 May 2019 - 01:31 PM.


#7 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 790 posts

Posted 17 May 2019 - 03:03 AM

I am the world's greatest sceptic - in all except science.  I missed out on so much that I am never sure there isn't something I missed.  So I sit tight and listen.  I rather liked that article, though, for another reason.  Many of us - myself included - affirm that the word "falsifiability" is being misused, given its basic meaning.  Now we have an article that uses a different word - reproducibility.  They do mean the same in scientific research, don't they?  Or do they?  I can see it two ways.

 

Its probably semantics, but I think falsifiability is in the land of vagueness lacking reproducible evidence, and might not be fact, whereas reproducible is a clear repeatable result that if interpreted correctly supports a fact. Observations in astronomy are often more speculative than in particle physics, with lots of seemingly plausible theories kicking about. The Higgs boson might be an exception to this, it does not seem to be a reproducible result at the moment, discalimer, as far as I understand :).



#8 hazelm

hazelm

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1081 posts

Posted 17 May 2019 - 02:35 PM

Its probably semantics, but I think falsifiability is in the land of vagueness lacking reproducible evidence, and might not be fact, whereas reproducible is a clear repeatable result that if interpreted correctly supports a fact. Observations in astronomy are often more speculative than in particle physics, with lots of seemingly plausible theories kicking about. The Higgs boson might be an exception to this, it does not seem to be a reproducible result at the moment, discalimer, as far as I understand :).

No doubt two different  "animals".